Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AUTONOMY, PARTNER UNDERSTANDING,
AND INTIMACY IN A SAMPLE OF HETEROSEXUAL MARITAL
RELATIONSHIPS
by
Timothy Lee Williams
Liberty University
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Liberty University
January, 2015
ii
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AUTONOMY, PARTNER UNDERSTANDING, AND INTIMACY IN A SAMPLE OF HETEROSEXUAL MARITAL
RELATIONSHIPS
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Faculty of Liberty University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
by
Timothy Lee Williams
© Copyright, January 2015
Liberty University, Lynchburg, Virginia
January 2015
Dissertation Committee Approval:
___________________________________________ Committee Chair Date
___________________________________________ Committee Member Date
___________________________________________ Committee Member Date
iii
ABSTRACT
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AUTONOMY, PARTNER UNDERSTANDING,
AND INTIMACY IN A SAMPLE OF HETEROSEXUAL MARITAL
RELATIONSHIPS
Timothy Lee Williams
Center for Counseling and Family Studies
Liberty University, Lynchburg, Virginia
Doctor of Philosophy in Counseling
The current study examined three research questions. First, do Personality, Partner
Understanding, and Autonomy correlate with Intimacy? Second, does self-reported
Autonomy correlate with self-reported Intimacy experienced in the marriage after
controlling for Personality? Third, Does Partner Understanding correlate with the Partner
Intimacy reported in the marriage after controlling for Personality? The study revealed
Neuroticism, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Autonomy to be significantly correlated
with Intimacy. Results also revealed Autonomy to be s significant predictor of Intimacy
after controlling for Personality and Partner Personality. Examination of Standardized
Beta Coefficients revealed Autonomy to be the strongest predictor of Intimacy among
variables included in the study. Surprisingly, findings revealed Partner Understanding
was not a significant predictor of Partner Intimacy after controlling for Personality and
Partner Personality. One possible explanation is that Partner Understanding is a
moderating variable which influences other predictors of Partner Intimacy. Limitations
of this study and suggestions for further research are discussed.
iv
Acknowledgements
I want to begin by thanking my dissertation committee for their work,
encouragement, and mostly for their patience to see me through this process. To Dr.
Scott Hawkins, I thank you for your guiding comments and questions. Your positive
attitude helped raise my morale, especially when things were not going well. Dr. Victor
Hinson, I also thank you for your questions and comments which were often challenging,
but helped me see things from a different perspective. Your advice and mentorship early
in the program helped me stay motivated. To my chair, Dr. David Jenkins, you have
influenced me greatly. From our lengthy conversation at an AACC conference before I
enrolled in the PhD program, to the many hours spent communicating about my
dissertation, you have been there for me from the start to the end. I would not have been
able to complete my dissertation without your patience and encouragement, especially as
I struggled through the valleys of finding boundaries around the concepts and variables in
my research design. There is also the life-path changing moment of connecting me with
Bob Paul at the National Institute of Marriage for my practicum. For your huge
investment in my life I am forever grateful.
In addition to my committee, I also thank my sister, Marsha Lane, for your time
and conversation as I sorted through the early design process of my research. Mom,
thank you for your prayers. They are without number and I’m glad you have seen your
prayers answered. I pray God has a reward for you beyond seeing me finish. Thank you
for being a great Mom. To the rest of my family, thank you for your prayers and support.
Thank you Bob Paul for helping me find volunteers for my study, and especially for your
v
encouragement during a very discouraging time of my dissertation. To my co-workers at
the National Institute of Marriage, thank you for your support. I thank my co-workers at
Liberty University, your supportive words and prayers were an inspiration. I thank the
seven church leaders who volunteered to help distribute the questionnaire packets and
collect the completed packets from participants. My dissertation would not be finished
without your help. To my church family at Happy Zion Baptist Church, thank you for the
prayers and encouraging words you have freely given over the years; they made a bigger
impact than I think you realize. There are so many to thank, if I have forgotten to
mention someone, you know your part in helping me reach the finish line and I thank
you.
In conclusion there are two people to whom I owe much. First, to Carol, my one
and only. Right down the line it’s been you and me, all the way from high school. The
words “Thank You” just don’t seem big enough to match the sacrifice you made and
what you have given up in order for me to finish my degree. It’s not possible for me to
repay you in my lifetime. My hope is that God will give you in this lifetime and the next,
rewards that go beyond your sacrifice since only he is able. I look forward to our
remaining years together.
Finally, and most of all, I want to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. For
without him, none of this would be possible. He guided me from the beginning, he
strengthened me through the journey, he never once left me alone, and he gets all the
glory for the story. Psalm 18:33 (KJV) “He maketh my feet like hinds’ feet, and setteth
me upon my high places.”
vi
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... iii
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... iv
List of Tables.................................................................................................................. xi
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................1
Background of the Problem .............................................................................................2
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................5
Research Questions .........................................................................................................5
Assumptions and Limitations ...........................................................................................6
Definitions .......................................................................................................................7
Autonomy ............................................................................................................7
Self-Determination Scale (SDS) ...........................................................................7
Self-Determination Theory (SDT) ........................................................................7
Personality ...........................................................................................................8
Partner Personality ...............................................................................................8
Five-Factor Theory ..............................................................................................8
NEO Five-Factor Inventory-3 (NEO-FFI-3) .........................................................8
Partner Understanding ..........................................................................................9
vii
Cross Observer Agreement (COA) .......................................................................9
Index of Profile Agreement (IPA) ........................................................................9
Validation .......................................................................................................... 10
Intimacy ............................................................................................................. 10
Intimate Safety Questionnaire (ISQ)................................................................... 10
Significance of the Study ............................................................................................... 10
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework ............................................................................... 12
Organization of the Remaining Chapters........................................................................ 14
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 14
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................................... 16
Individual Characteristics .............................................................................................. 20
Psychological Needs .......................................................................................... 20
Personality Traits ............................................................................................... 24
Relational Attributes ...................................................................................................... 27
Intimate Behaviors ............................................................................................. 28
Cognitive Perceptions ........................................................................................ 33
Emotional Support ............................................................................................. 35
Intimacy as a Process ..................................................................................................... 36
viii
Caring ................................................................................................................ 36
Validation .......................................................................................................... 36
Understanding .................................................................................................... 37
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS .................................................................................. 42
Research Design ............................................................................................................ 42
Selection of participants ..................................................................................... 42
Instrumentation .................................................................................................. 44
Research Procedures ...................................................................................................... 47
Research Hypotheses ..................................................................................................... 48
Data Processing and Analysis ........................................................................................ 50
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 51
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS ...................................................................................... 52
Demographics……………………………………………………………………………52
Research Question One .................................................................................................. 52
Personality ......................................................................................................... 54
Partner Understanding ........................................................................................ 54
Autonomy .......................................................................................................... 54
ix
Research Question Two ................................................................................................. 57
Regression Analysis ........................................................................................... 57
Unique Variance ................................................................................................ 58
Research Question Three ............................................................................................... 62
Regression Analysis ........................................................................................... 62
Unique Variance ................................................................................................ 64
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 67
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........... 68
Research Question One .................................................................................................. 69
Personality ......................................................................................................... 69
Partner Understanding ........................................................................................ 73
Autonomy .......................................................................................................... 74
Research Question Two ................................................................................................. 75
Personality ......................................................................................................... 75
Partner Personality ............................................................................................. 76
Autonomy .......................................................................................................... 77
Research Question Three ............................................................................................... 78
Personality ......................................................................................................... 79
x
Partner Personality ............................................................................................. 79
Partner Understanding ........................................................................................ 83
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................ 84
Recommendations and Implications for Research .......................................................... 86
Limitations of the Study ................................................................................................ 87
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 88
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 91
Appendix A: Demographic Information Form ............................................................. 104
Appendix B: Letter to Church Leader .......................................................................... 106
Appendix C: Research Study Announcement ............................................................... 108
Appendix D: Name/Contact Information Form ............................................................ 109
Appendix E: Consent Form.......................................................................................... 110
xi
List of Tables
Table 1: Primary Factors of Relational Intimacy ……………………………………..…19
Table 2: Demographic Frequencies of Participant Sample …………………………...…53
Table 3: Correlations of Intimacy with measures of Personality, Partner
Understanding, and Autonomy ………………………………………………..56
Table 4: Hierarchical Regression Predicting Unique Variances on Intimacy …………..59
Table 5: Standardized Beta Coefficients Regression Analysis Predicting the Unique
Variances on Intimacy after Accounting for Self and Partner Personality ……61
Table 6: Hierarchical Regression Predicting Unique Variances on Partner Intimacy …..63
Table 7: Standardized Beta Coefficients Regression Analysis Predicting the
Unique Variances on Partner Intimacy after Accounting for Self and
Partner Personality ………………………………………………..……………66
Table 8: Regression of Personality and Partner Personality on Intimacy and
Partner Intimacy ………………………………………………………………..82
1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
The need to develop and maintain close interpersonal relationships with a sense of
acceptance and belonging has been described as a fundamental need and motivation for
well-being (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Ryan & Deci, 2000b, 2002). Marriage is viewed
as the primary adult relationship which offers the opportunity for acceptance and
belonging (Noller & Feeney, 2002). Research has shown a healthy marriage relationship
to be significantly related to multiple factors of well-being (Carr & Springer, 2010),
including, but not limited to, less psychological distress (Johnson & Wu, 2002), longevity
(Gardner & Oswald, 2004), general physical health (Hughes & Waite, 2009; Lorenz,
Wickrama, Conger, & Elder, 2006; Williams & Umberson, 2004), and improved
emotional health, sexual health, and financial success (Waite & Gallagher, 2000).
However, results have been mixed identifying the characteristics and qualities that
contribute to healthy marital relationships (Finchham & Beach, 2010; Karney, 2007;
Wright, Simmons, & Campbell, 2007; Young, 2004). Although conflict resolution has
been a major focus in marital research during the past 25 years (Fincham & Beach,
1999), for a little more than a decade marital research has seen increasing emphasis on
positive interpersonal processes such as intimacy and the positive factors contributing to
relationship health (Fincham, Stanley, & Beach, 2007; Lambert, Fincham, Gwinn, &
Ajayi, 2011; Laurenceau, Barrett, & Rovine, 2005; Ryff & Singer, 2000). Researchers
recognize the need for increased understanding of marital intimacy and the factors and
processes which contribute to connectedness between marital partners (Clark & Reis,
1988; La Guardia & Patrick, 2008; Laurenceau et al., 2005). Because of its foundational
2
role in relationship health, relational intimacy within the context of marital relationships
is the focus of the present study.
Background of the Problem
Intimacy is defined as an interpersonal process (Reis & Shaver, 1988), resulting in
one’s partner feeling “understood, validated, and cared for” (Reis & Patrick, 1996, p.
536). Reis and Patrick (1996) define understanding as “the belief that an interaction
partner has accurately and appropriately perceived one’s inner self; that the partner gets
the facts right about important needs, affects, goals, beliefs, and life circumstances that
constitute the central core of the self” (p. 549). Intimacy research has examined the level
of spousal understanding through assessing self-disclosure between partners (Waring,
Schaefer, & Fry, 1994). Reis and Patrick (1996) explain self-disclosure between partners
reflects understanding because certain relationship principles (e.g., mutuality,
congruence, trust) exist when self-disclosers feel understood. Although research shows
self-disclosure is related to understanding (Reis & Patrick, 1996), self-disclosure does not
necessarily equate to accurate understanding between partners. Self-disclosure is
behavior by which partner understanding can be improved (Laurenceau, Barrett, &
Pietromonaco, 1998), but the presence of self-disclosure does not ensure understanding
and intimacy will increase in the relationship (Morry, 2005; Spencer, 1994). Individuals
can self-disclose without the spouse understanding the discloser’s personality,
motivations or needs; therefore, assessing self-disclosure is not equivalent to assessing
understanding.
3
Accuracy of an individual’s understanding of his or her partner’s personality,
motivations, and needs can be determined through Cross-Observer Agreement (COA)
analysis (Piedmont, 1998). Piedmont (1998) explains COA analysis can be conducted
using self and rater report forms of the NEO personality measures. The NEO-FFI-3, a
shorter version of the NEO-PI-3, provides a comprehensive measure of the five domains
of personality as described in Five-Factor Theory (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness,
Agreeableness, Conscientiousness), and is available in both self and rater forms (McCrae
& Costa, 2010). The congruence between rater report scores and the self-report scores of
one’s partner using the NEO measures reveals one’s understanding of his or her partner’s
personality, motivations, and needs (Piedmont, 1998). An increase in the difference
between one’s rater scores and the self-report scores of the partner reveals less
understanding the rater has of the partner. Previous research has utilized self and rater
analysis in examining the relationship between partner understanding and marital
adjustment (Creamer & Campbell, 1988; Murstein & Beck, 1972) and marital satisfaction
(Murray, Holmes, Bellavia, Griffin, & Dolderman, 2002; Newmark, Woody, & Ziff,
1977; Ptacek & Dodge, 1995), but no studies have been found that examine the
relationship between understanding one’s partner and intimacy using COA analysis with
the NEO measures.
In addition to feeling understood by one’s partner, experiencing validation and
feeling cared for are vital aspects in the process of intimacy. Research has confirmed the
link between validation and intimacy (Cordova & Scott, 2001; Laurenceau et al., 2005;
Mitchell et al., 2008), but further research is needed to identify the individual
4
characteristics of people who validate their partners (Matthews & Clark, 1982). Reis and
Patrick (1996) define validation as “the perception that an interaction partner values and
respects one’s inner self and point of view” (p. 550). Value and respect for a partner’s
inner self and point of view are linked to autonomy.
Autonomy, as defined by Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci,
2000a), has been shown to facilitate “attachment, relational intimacy, and outcomes
associated with them” (Ryan & Deci, 2006, p. 1564). More specifically, according to
SDT, autonomy is associated with a desire for growth in self and others (Ryan & Deci,
2006), and associated with additional positive interpersonal processes including: (a)
attempting to understand one’s partner (Knee, Lonsbary, Canevello, & Patrick, 2005); (b)
Openness and respect for partner’s unique differences (Knee, Patrick, Vietor,
Nanayakkara, & Neighbors, 2002); (c) a greater consensus, cohesion, and affectional
expression with romantic partners (Blais, Sabourin, Boucher, & Vallerand, 1990); (d)
more commitment, satisfaction, intimacy, and vitality within relationships (La Guardia &
Patrick, 2008); and (e) increased attunement, empathy and encouragement toward
partners (Weinstein, Hodgins, & Ryan, 2010). Autonomous individuals are more likely
to relate to their partners in ways that are experienced as validating, thus facilitating the
interpersonal process of intimacy within their marital relationship. Despite the links
between autonomy, validation, and intimacy, no research has been found which examines
the relationship between autonomy as defined by SDT and marital intimacy.
Personality can be described by the five primary domains (i.e., Neuroticism,
Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness) in the Five-Factor
5
Theory (McCrae & Costa, 2003). In addition to autonomy and understanding one’s
partner, personality traits have also been found to influence marital outcomes. Lower
scores on Neuroticism and higher scores on Agreeableness have consistently shown to be
correlated with higher levels of marital satisfaction while the remaining three traits in the
Five-Factor Theory (i.e., Extraversion, Openness, and Conscientiousness) have shown
mixed results with marital outcomes (Bouchard, Lussier, & Sabourin, 1999; Karney &
Bradbury, 1997; Kosek, 1996; Rogge, Bradbury, Hahlweg, Engl, & Thurmaier, 2006).
Personality traits are considered relatively stable across the life-span (McCrae & Costa,
2003). Due to their stability during the adult years and their influence on marital
outcomes, the five personality domains of the Five-Factor Theory will be utilized as
control variables in the study to allow a more accurate assessment of the influence of
autonomy and partner understanding on relational intimacy.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between autonomy,
partner understanding as measured by COA, and relational intimacy in heterosexual
married couples.
Research Questions
The following research questions were used to guide this study and were
examined for both spouses:
1. Do Personality, Partner Understanding, and Autonomy correlate with Intimacy?
6
2. Does self-reported Autonomy correlate with self-reported Intimacy experienced in
the marriage after controlling for Personality?
3. Does Partner Understanding, as determined by COA, correlate with the partner’s
Intimacy reported in the marriage after controlling for Personality?
Assumptions and Limitations
Participants for the study were volunteer heterosexual married couples. Married
individuals only were assessed through the study, thus results may not be applicable to
cohabitating couples, friendships, and other dyadic relationships. Participants were
volunteers recruited through churches. These restrictions on participant selection could
have contributed to selection bias and threatened internal validity. Research has provided
strong support that married persons are healthier than unmarried individuals (Carr &
Springer, 2010). In addition to being married, religiosity has also shown to be
significantly related to positive outcomes including higher marital satisfaction and
adjustment (Dudley & Kosinski, 1990; Wilson & Musick, 1996), and lower threat of
divorce (Heaton & Goodman, 1985; Shrum, 1980).
External validity could have been threatened as results may not be applicable to
individuals or couples who do not participate in religious practices through church
attendance. Participants were informed that counseling services were available if needed
and were given contact information of local counseling agencies. In the event that
participation in the study would have facilitated psychological disturbance within
individual participants or within the marriage relationship of participants, participants
would have been able to contact a counseling agency to initiate services.
7
Instruments for this study were self-report measures relying on the honesty and
integrity of participants for accuracy. Self-report measures elicit validity concerns as
participants could have completed the measures with a socially desirable response bias
(Kazdin, 2003), and should be considered when results are reviewed. This study utilized
a cross sectional correlational design so data collection was limited to a single point in
time, thus excluding causality statements regarding findings. A longitudinal design was
preferred, but unfeasible due to time and financial constraints.
Definitions
The primary terms used in this study are defined and organized in this section
around three main concepts including individual characteristics (i.e., autonomy,
personality traits), relational attributes (i.e., partner understanding, validation), and
intimacy.
Autonomy
In this study, the term autonomy is defined as self-regulation. Autonomous acts
are decisions and behaviors which are self-determined, authentically chosen for which
one takes full responsibility, and fully endorsed by the self (Ryan & Deci, 2006).
Self-Determination Scale (SDS)
The Self-Determination Scale (SDS) is a measure used to assess individual
autonomy as defined by Self-Determination Theory (Sheldon, Ryan, & Reis, 1996).
Self-Determination Theory (SDT)
Self-Determination Theory (SDT) is a theory of motivation proposing three innate
psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Satisfaction of these three
8
needs facilitates mental health and well-being while restriction thwarts motivation and
well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2000a).
Personality
Personality refers to the five primary domains of personality as defined by Five-
Factor Theory (McCrae & Costa, 2003), including Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness,
Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. The five domains of personality were assessed
using the NEO-FFI-3.
Partner Personality
Partner Personality refers to the five primary domains of personality as defined
by Five-Factor Theory (McCrae & Costa, 2003), including Neuroticism, Extraversion,
Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. The five domains of personality were
assessed using the NEO-FFI-3.
Five-Factor Theory
Five-Factor Theory refers to the theory which describes five primary domains of
personality presented by McCrae and Costa (2003) including: Neuroticism, Extraversion,
Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness.
NEO Five-Factor Inventory-3 (NEO-FFI-3)
The NEO Five-Factor Inventory-3 (NEO-FFI-3) is a measure which was used to
assess the five primary domains of personality including Neuroticism, Extraversion,
Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness (McCrae & Costa, 2010). The five
domain scores were used to complete a COA. The NEO-FFI-3 is available in both Form
9
S and Form R. Form S was used as a self-report measure of personality. Form R is a
rater report and was used to assess understanding of marital partner personality.
Partner Understanding
The term partner understanding was used to define the level of understanding
each spouse has of his or her partner’s personality, motivations, and needs. Partner
understanding was calculated utilizing a Cross Observer Agreement (COA) analysis
which yielded an Index of Profile Agreement (IPA). For example, the husband’s partner
understanding was calculated by comparing his rater report scores to his wife’s self-
report scores on the NEO-FFI-3 Form R and Form S, respectively. A higher husband
partner understanding score represents greater understanding the husband has of his
wife’s personality, motivations, and needs (Piedmont, 1998).
Cross Observer Agreement (COA)
The term Cross Observer Agreement (COA) refers to a correlational statistical
process which utilized the NEO-FFI-3 rater report scores and spouse NEO-FFI-3 self-
report scores to determine an Index of Profile Agreement (IPA). Larger IPA represents a
greater level of understanding one has of the partner’s personality, motivations, and needs
(Piedmont, 1998).
Index of Profile Agreement (IPA)
Index of Profile Agreement (IPA) is a number between 0 and 1 calculated by
performing a Cross Observer Agreement analysis where the scores from the NEO-FFI-3
rater report (Form R) and spouse’s self-report (Form S) were compared (McCrae, 2008).
The IPA is a measure of correlation between one’s NEO-FFI-3 rater report and the
10
spouse’s NEO-FFI-3 self-report with a larger IPA score representing a greater
understanding one has of partner personality, motivations, and needs (Piedmont, 1998).
Validation
Validation was defined as the act of placing value on the true self of another
person. Value acts include respect and appreciation for the unique qualities,
characteristics, and point of view of one’s partner. Validation does not require agreement
with a partner’s point of view; rather validation is the respect and value of a partner’s
point of view regardless of level of agreement (Reis & Patrick, 1996).
Intimacy
The term intimacy refers to a relational characteristic within the context of
heterosexual marital relationships experienced individually by husband and wife as they
interact in an interdependent relationship. Intimacy is described as a dyadic interactive
process where the vulnerable behaviors of an individual are positively reinforced by
one’s partner, and the individual being vulnerable experiences feelings of safety
(Cordova, 2002).
Intimate Safety Questionnaire (ISQ)
The Intimate Safety Questionnaire (ISQ) is a 28-item self-report measure which
was used to assess the level of relational intimacy experienced as felt safety during
vulnerability around various relational domains (Cordova, Gee, & Warren, 2005).
Significance of the Study
To better understand the factors which contribute to relationship health, it is
important for researchers to examine both the personal attributes (e.g., motives, goals,
11
needs) of each individual in close relationships (Holmes & Murray, 2007; Patrick, Knee,
Canevello, & Lonsbary, 2007; Ryan & Deci, 2008), and the perceptions one has of his or
her partner’s attributes (DeHart, Pelham, & Murray, 2004). Reis (1990) states,
“According to our model, little intimacy exists when people feel that their partners do not
understand their essential nature…” (p. 25). Supporting the request for more research to
assess understanding in relational dyads, Sanderson and Cantor (2001) emphasized the
need for future research to “examine not only the characteristics (e.g., traits, goals, needs,
styles) of one individual in the relationship but also the actual and perceived
characteristics of her or his partners” (p. 1575). Research of interpersonal relationships
has examined personality traits (Jensen-Campbell, Knack, & Rex-Lear, 2009; McCrae &
Costa, 2003), but few studies have assessed if the understanding one has of partner
personality traits using Cross Observer Agreement (COA) analysis relates to dyadic
adjustment or relational satisfaction (Piedmont, 1998), and no studies were found to
examine the relationship between understanding assessed using COA and relational
intimacy in married couples.
In addition to understanding one’s partner, autonomy is crucial to the process of
intimacy (Ryan & Deci, 2006) and associated with increased responsiveness and empathy
toward partners (Weinstein et al., 2010). Autonomy is also associated with increased
attempts to clarify communication and understand one’s partner (Knee et al., 2002).
Despite research supporting the positive influence of autonomy on close relationships, the
association between autonomy and attempts to understand one’s partner, and findings that
support feeling understood influences intimacy, no research to date has examined the
12
relationship between autonomy, understanding partner personality traits, and the level of
intimacy experienced by one’s partner in marital relationships. As Sanderson and Cantor
(2001) have pointed out, further research is needed to examine perceptions of spouse
characteristics (e.g., COA).
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework
Major theorists in psychology including Karen Horney (1950), Carl Rogers
(1961), Harry Stack Sullivan (1953), and Abraham Maslow (1968) have proposed
intimate relationships are an important aspect of individual well-being. Research has also
shown intimacy to be an important factor within interpersonal relationships (Clark &
Reis, 1988; Cordova et al., 2005; Prager, 1995; Reis, 1990). Although various definitions
and perspectives of intimacy exist (see Prager, 1995, p.26), Reis and Shaver (1988)
present an influential model which describes intimacy as an internal interactive process.
Later, Reis and Patrick (1996) refined the definition of intimacy as “an interactive
process in which, as a result of partner’s response, individuals come to feel understood,
validated, and cared for” (p. 536).
Feeling understood, validated, and cared for reflects the fundamental aspects of
Roger’s Client-Centered approach to therapeutic change. Rogers (1961) believed that
providing a certain type of relationship for his clients would give them the opportunity
for change, growth, and personal development. Rogers described the relationship he
should provide as one characterized by acceptance, warm regard (e.g., caring), offering
unconditional self-worth, empathic understanding, and projecting value (e.g., validation)
to clients by respecting their conditions, behaviors, and feelings. He believed if he
13
offered clients a relationship characterized by these qualities and the freedom to explore
one’s true self, esteeming each person as a separate individual, then clients would grow in
their understanding of self, become more understanding and accepting of others, and
more expressive of their unique selves. Rogers believed the expression of one’s true self
(autonomy) within a relationship would facilitate autonomy in the other person. Rogers
(1961) described his view as a “general hypothesis which offers exciting possibilities for
the development of creative, adaptive, and autonomous persons” (p. 38). Rogers believed
these characteristics and results are found to be true in all types of interpersonal
relationships including teacher-student, supervisor-subordinate, parent-child, and other
family relationships. Speaking specifically regarding married and dating couples, Rogers
(1972) expresses the importance for each partner to share one’s feelings with the other
and express empathy and understanding for the feelings their partner expresses. He
further explains that the reciprocal process of validation begins with the expression of
one’s true self within the context of the relationship (i.e., autonomy), followed by
facilitating autonomy in the partner, and increasing the connection (i.e., intimacy) within
the relationship. Rogers (1972) states:
Finally, it is so rewarding to be in process of becoming one’s real self, that it is
almost inevitable that you will permit and encourage your partner in the same
direction, and rejoice in every step that he or she takes. It is fun to grow together,
two unique and intertwined lives. (p. 208)
Research findings have been inconsistent regarding the role of autonomy in the process
of intimacy. Results have largely been influenced by whether autonomy is defined as
14
independence (Eidelson, 1983; Rankin-Esquer, Burnett, Baucom, & Epstein, 1997;
Stamp & Banski, 1992) or as an intrinsic need (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). When defined as
independence, autonomy is seen as a conflicting factor to closeness and intimacy.
However, according to Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2006), autonomy
is an intrinsic need and described as a measure of self-governance. Autonomy is not
independence but rather the level of free choice one is exercising as he or she chooses the
level of interdependence within a relationship.
Organization of the Remaining Chapters
Chapter Two will review relevant literature regarding relational intimacy in
marriage and describe how individual characteristics and relational attributes contribute
to relational intimacy within marital dyads. Chapter Two will end with a summary.
Chapter Three will present the methods and include discussion of the research design,
selection of participants, and instrumentation that was used to collect data for the study.
Chapter Three will continue with explanation of the research procedures, data processing
and analysis, and conclude with a chapter summary. Chapter Four will report the results
and discuss the research questions. The chapter will end with a summary. The fifth and
final chapter will summarize the findings and discuss limitations and recommendations
for future research. Chapter Five will also present implications for practice and a final
summary.
Summary
Chapter One presented an overview of the problem to be examined. The
background of the problem was presented establishing the need for further research to
15
examine the relationship between autonomy, understanding, and marital intimacy. The
purpose of the study was presented and addressed the need for further marital intimacy
research. The purpose will be fulfilled by examining two key questions. First, does self-
reported autonomy correlate with self-reported intimacy? Second, does the level of
understanding an individual has of partner traits, needs and motivations as determined by
COA correlate with the partner’s self-reported intimacy? Design limitations were
discussed followed by definitions of key terms. The significance of the study and
theoretical background including aspects of Roger’s Person-Centered approach and Self-
Determination Theory were presented. And finally an organization of the remaining
chapters offers an overview of the study.
16
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
In their attempts to describe intimacy within close relationships and identify
elements which contribute to intimacy, researchers have focused on various categories of
factors within intimacy including behavioral (Cordova & Scott, 2001; Sullivan, 1953),
psychological (Prager, 1995), emotional (Kersten & Himle, 1991), and social factors
(Patterson, 1984). Intimacy has many meanings and a clear and unified definition is not
found in the literature (Reis & Patrick, 1996). Prager (1995) describes intimacy as a
“fuzzy” concept which “is characterized by a shifting template of features rather than by
a clearly bounded set” (p. 13). Dorian and Cordova (2004) also speak about the
structural “fuzziness” of intimacy and propose staying within a behavioral approach to
ensure measurability of the factors that comprise intimacy. In describing the existence of
multiple views of intimacy, Acitelli and Duck (1987) used the metaphor of blind men
trying to describe an elephant while each are holding a different part of the elephant.
Other researchers (Gaia, 2002; Hook, Gerstein, Detterich, & Gridley, 2003;
Patrick & Beckenbach, 2009) have also described the difficulty encountered when
defining intimacy due to its multifaceted nature. Prager (1995) recommends defining one
or more elements of intimacy rather than attempting a comprehensive definition.
Chelune, Robison, and Kommor (1984) describe intimacy as a relational property which
is not contained within any individual, but is an attribute of the system that “emerges out
of” (p. 25), the interactions between two people. Although intimacy is not defined as a
characteristic of an individual, it can be understood as an attribute of a system that
influences and is influenced by the individuals within the system. Therefore, the
17
development of intimacy in marital relationships may be better understood by examining
the attributes each spouse possesses and expresses within the marital relationship, the
interactive processes by which it develops, and the overall system in which intimacy
occurs.
While a consensus definition of intimacy may not be possible (Lippert & Prager,
2001), understanding of marital intimacy can be improved by examining it through three
lenses or perspectives. Those three lenses include: individual characteristics of each
partner including the psychological motivational needs and personality traits within each
spouse, the relational attributes between spouses, and the relational processes of intimacy
as it develops in marital relationships. The psychological motivational needs of
individuals are described by Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2002) as
competence, relatedness, and autonomy. In this study, the Five-Factor Theory is used to
define personality traits. The Five-Factor Theory (McCrae & Costa, 2003) identifies the
five major personality traits as Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and
Conscientiousness. The primary relational attributes between spouses which facilitate
intimacy include the intimate behaviors expressed by both partners (Lippert & Prager,
2001), the cognitive perceptions accumulated by each (Chelune et al., 1984), and the
emotional support they mutually exchange (Kersten & Himle, 1991). Caring, validation,
and understanding are central aspects of the relational process of intimacy. Reis and
Patrick (1996) explain intimacy as “an interactive process in which, as a result of a
partner’s response, individuals come to feel understood, validated, and cared for” (p.
536). Examining all three lenses (i.e., individual characteristics, relational attributes, and
18
relational intimacy processes) provides an opportunity for a thorough understanding of
intimacy. This chapter is organized around the factors listed in Table 1: Factors of
Relational Intimacy.
19
Table 1
Factors of Relational Intimacy
Individual Characteristics Relational Attributes Intimacy as a Process Psychological Needs Intimate Behaviors Caring
Competence Self-disclosure Respect
Relatedness Partner Responsiveness Positive Regard
Autonomy Validation
Validation
Personality Traits Cognitive Perceptions Autonomy
Neuroticism Cognitive Knowledge Understanding
Extraversion Cognitive Meanings
Openness Understanding
Agreeableness Emotional Support Extensiveness
Conscientiousness Caring Accuracy
Validation
20
Individual Characteristics
The individual characteristics of each individual in a dyadic relationship can have
an influence on both the relationship between partners and on one’s partner. It is beyond
the scope of this study to address all individual characteristics which can influence dyadic
relationships, but two types of characteristics, psychological needs and personality traits,
are often discussed in the literature on dyadic relationships. Self-Determination Theory
(Deci & Ryan, 2002) is a common approach to explain psychological needs, and the
Five-Factor Theory (McCrae & Costa, 2003) is the predominate theory addressing
personality traits.
Psychological Needs
The fulfillment of basic psychological needs is a major factor in psychological
development and functioning, and their importance to psychological development and
functioning has been compared to the necessity of the fulfillment of basic physiological
needs (e.g., food and water) to physical development and functioning (Ryan & Deci,
2000a). Ryan and Deci (2002) propose the fulfillment of basic psychological needs are
necessary to the development and well-being of individual’s personality and cognitive
structures, and emphasize the three basic needs of competence, relatedness, and
autonomy. Furthermore, Ryan and Deci (2008) propose the quality and well-being of
close personal relationships are associated with the fulfillment of the three basic needs of
competence, relatedness, and autonomy defined within SDT.
Competence. Fulfillment of the psychological need for competence is defined by
Ryan and Deci (2002) as “feeling effective in one’s ongoing interactions with the social
21
environment and experiencing opportunities to exercise and express one’s capacities” (p.
7). Competence fulfillment has been shown to be associated with greater well-being
(Sheldon et al., 1996). Although competence fulfillment in relationships has been shown
to be associated with attachment security, it is less important than relatedness and
autonomy to attachment security (LaGuardia, Ryan, Couchman, & Deci, 2000).
LaGuardia, Ryan, Couchman, and Deci (2000) hypothesize the importance of
competence fulfillment in close interpersonal relationships is less than relatedness and
autonomy because competence is often satisfied within other contexts (e.g., work or
school). Therefore, although competence is an important psychological need, relatedness
and autonomy are more central aspects of research addressing close relationships.
Relatedness. While fulfillment of all three psychological needs is important to
interpersonal relationships (LaGuardia et al., 2000), the fulfillment of relatedness has
been shown to be the most influential on relationship functioning and well-being. Patrick
et al. (2007) state that partners experiencing greater fulfillment of relatedness show
greater relationship satisfaction, less perceived conflict, and report less defensive
reactions to conflict. Relatedness as a psychological need “refers to feeling connected to
others, to caring for and being cared for by those others, to having a sense of
belongingness both with other individuals and with one’s community” (Ryan & Deci,
2002, p. 7). Relatedness within marital relationships as defined by SDT is very similar to
the concept of intimacy. A caring connected relationship is central to the process of
intimacy (Reis & Patrick, 1996).
22
Autonomy. The importance of autonomy to individual and relational well-being
is substantial. Ryan and Deci (2006) state that autonomy is “a salient issue across
development, life domains, and cultures and is of central import for personality
functioning and wellness” (p. 1580).
Autonomy defined. Research findings have been inconsistent regarding the role
of autonomy in the process of intimacy. Results have largely been influenced by whether
autonomy is defined as independence (Eidelson, 1983; Rankin-Esquer et al., 1997) or
self-determined motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). Defined as independence, autonomy
is understood as the opposing end on a continuum with intimacy and is seen as an
alternative choice to intimacy (Stamp & Banski, 1992). However, autonomy, as defined
by Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2006), is the intrinsic motivation to
act in a way endorsed by the whole self, fully chosen and determined by one’s self.
According to SDT, autonomy is not independence or isolation and is not the opposite of
intimacy, but rather the act of freely choosing from a volitional approach. People can
choose to be autonomous or controlled in their relative independence or relative
dependence upon others, but those making choices from an autonomous approach are
doing so from a full sense of choice and self-endorsement (Deci & Ryan, 2000, 2008).
According to Ryan and Deci (2006), research on autonomy shows “support for autonomy
facilitates attachment, intimacy, and the outcomes associated with them” and “SDT has
continually found that people feel most related to those who support their autonomy” (p.
1564). Individuals with higher autonomous motivation have been shown to be more
attuned to, empathic, and encouraging of their partners (Weinstein et al., 2010); show
23
more commitment, satisfaction, intimacy, and vitality within relationships (La Guardia &
Patrick, 2008); and have greater consensus, cohesion, and affectional expression with
their romantic partners (Blais et al., 1990). Autonomy, as defined by SDT, is similar to
Reis and Patrick’s (1996) caring and validation. Autonomous motivation is associated
with increased attempts to understand one’s partner (Knee et al., 2002, p. 617).
Therefore, autonomy and understanding one’s partner are interconnected and vital
aspects of the intimacy process in close relationships.
Factors that contribute to autonomy. The nature and context of interactions
within relationships determines if autonomy is facilitated within individuals. Individuals
experience an autonomous self when their environment is autonomy supportive. Skinner
and Edge (2002) describe autonomous environments as those that allow and encourage
individuals to esteem their inner selves and value one’s internal conditions, preferences,
and desires. Autonomous interactions are those that facilitate self-expression in decision
making and problem solving, promoting expression of one’s true sentiments, goals, and
longings. In addition to respecting the self-governance of one’s partner, autonomous
partners effectively participate in the discovery and expression of their partner’s true self
(Skinner & Edge, 2002).
Relationship between autonomy and intimacy. Intimacy, defined as an attribute
of a system influenced by the individuals within the system, requires relational partners to
present themselves, on a certain level, as true representations of their individual selves.
The authenticity of intimacy is related to the level of authenticity in which each partner
presents his or her true self. When the true self of either partner is stifled, smothered or
24
controlled, relational intimacy is hindered. Intimacy is supported when couples respect
their partner’s autonomy. Support for autonomy facilitates attachment, intimacy, and the
outcomes associated with them (Ryan & Deci, 2006, p. 1564). Honoring partner
uniqueness facilitates intimacy. Hatfield (1984) states, “If people are going to have an
intimate relationship, they have to learn to enjoy others as they are, without hoping to fix
them up” (p. 217). Hatfield continues to explain that one must accept a partner for the
person he or she is right now, instead of the person he or she was or could become.
Rogers (1972) emphasizes the importance to relationship health when each partner
“owns, respects, and develops his or her own selfhood” (p. 206). Thus the promotion of
each individual’s autonomy within the relationship presents the opportunity for intimacy
to increase between partners.
Personality Traits
Individual personality traits are important factors of influence on one’s partner
and relationship health in dyadic relationships (Dyrenforth, Kashy, Donnellan, & Lucas,
2010; Holland & Roisman, 2008; Robins, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2000; Shiota & Levenson,
2007; White, Hendrick, & Hendrick, 2004). Piedmont (1998) states, “one’s personality
has a profound impact on both the quality and tempo of one’s relationship with intimate
others” (p. 172). The leading personality trait theory is the Five-Factor Theory of
personality (McCrae & Costa, 2003), which proposes individual personality is made up
of the following five traits: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to experience,
Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness.
25
Neuroticism. McCrae and Costa (2010) describe Neuroticism as “the most
pervasive domain of personality scales…” and “the general tendency to experience
negative affects such as fear, sadness, embarrassment, anger, guilt, and disgust is the core
of the N domain” (p. 19). Those scoring lower on Neuroticism are emotionally steady,
composed, and easy-going and during difficult circumstances are less likely to become
distressed, anxious, or emotionally distraught. Marital research has shown that of the five
traits, Neuroticism has the most influence and is consistently related to negative
consequences in marital outcomes (Karney & Bradbury, 1995). Neuroticism (i.e., lower
emotional stability and higher negative emotionality) has been linked to greater marital
discord (Whisman, Uebelacker, Tolejko, Chatav, & McKelvie, 2006), lower levels of
marital satisfaction and quality (Karney & Bradbury, 1997; Robins et al., 2000; Rogge et
al., 2006), lower marital adjustment (Bouchard et al., 1999), and significantly lowers
marital idealization (O’Rourke, Neufeld, Claxton, & Smith, 2010).
Extraversion. McCrae and Costa (2010) describe individuals scoring high on the
Extraversion scale as sociable people who prefer “large groups and gatherings” who can
also be described as “assertive, active, and talkative,” and they “like excitement and
stimulation and tend to be cheerful in disposition” (p. 19). Research examining
Extraversion in relation to marital outcomes has been inconsistent. Extraversion has been
shown to be positively correlated with marital satisfaction (Watson, Hubbard, & Wiese,
2000), but Gattis, Berns, Simpson, and Christensen (2004) found no significant
correlation between Extraversion and marital satisfaction. Lazarides, Belanger, and
Sabourin (2010) found women’s Extraversion to be positively correlated to couple
26
stability while Bouchard et al. (1999) report no significant correlation between
Extraversion and marital adjustment.
Openness. Those who score higher on Openness to experience are described as
inquisitive, more tolerant to change, and open to new and original ideas preferring a more
independent self-governing approach versus conventional, established, and predictable
views (McCrae & Costa, 2010). Openness is positively correlated with marital
satisfaction (Botwin, Buss, & Shackelford, 1997) and dyadic adjustment (Bouchard &
Arseneault, 2005). However, Bouchard and Arseneault (2005) found that length of
relationship moderated the influence of Openness on dyadic adjustment with longer
relationships showing a negative correlation between women’s Openness and dyadic
adjustment. Bouchard and Arseneault (2005) hypothesize that women who score higher
on Openness would be more open to non-traditional views of marriage, and when in less
satisfactory relationships, those scoring higher on Openness would be more apt to reject
traditional views and consider alternative options. Donnellan, Conger, and Bryant (2004)
found that “self-reports of Openness were negatively correlated with observer reports of
negative interactions” and “self-reports of Openness by wives were positively correlated
with global reports of sexual satisfaction for both wives and husbands” (p. 498).
Donnellan et al. (2004) suggest caution when interpreting results for Openness, noting it
is one of the more difficult traits to understand in close relationships.
Agreeableness. A person scoring high on the Agreeableness scale is described as
someone who is unselfish, compassionate, and helpful toward others. Low scorers would
be more disagreeable and cynical or questioning of the motives of others (McCrae &
27
Costa, 2010). Agreeableness has been shown to be negatively correlated to marital
discord (Whisman et al., 2006), positively correlated to marital idealization (O’Rourke et
al., 2010) and significantly related to marital satisfaction (Botwin et al., 1997; Donnellan
et al., 2004; Kosek, 1996; Watson et al., 2000). Donnellan et al. (2004) propose
Agreeableness may be as important as Neuroticism in comprehending the health of close
relationships and encourage heightened attention to this trait when studying marital
relationships.
Conscientiousness. McCrae and Costa (2010) define individuals scoring high on
Conscientiousness as “purposeful, strong-willed, determined, scrupulous, punctual, and
reliable” and are more likely than low scorers to be engaged in “the process of planning,
organizing, and carrying out tasks” (p. 20). Conscientiousness has been examined in
relation to marital outcomes, but has shown mixed results (Botwin et al., 1997; Bouchard
et al., 1999; Rogge et al., 2006). O’Rourke et al. (2010) reported Conscientiousness is
related to marital idealization. Conscientiousness has also been shown to be a significant
predictor of marital satisfaction (Gattis et al., 2004; Watson et al., 2000).
Relational Attributes
Relational attributes describe the interactional factors defining the relationship
between partners. The primary marital relationship attributes found in the literature
include intimate behaviors, cognitive perceptions, and emotional support (Derlega, 1984;
Kersten & Himle, 1991; Prager, 1995; Reis & Patrick, 1996).
28
Intimate Behaviors
Although the sexual relationship and nonsexual physical touch between marital
partners can be viewed as important elements of intimacy within the relationship
(Bagarozzi, 2001; Kersten & Himle, 1991), sensual and physical contact are considered
to be of lesser importance than other relationship qualities when defining intimacy (Van
den Broucke, Vertommen, & Vandereycken, 1995). Behaviors, including nonverbal
behavior, provide observers information about partner traits, motivations, and states. In
addition, information about personality, goals, and feelings can be understood through
observed partner behavior (Keeley & Hart, 1994). Nonsexual interaction behaviors
between spouses have been a focus of intimacy research. Lippert and Prager (2001)
explain interaction characteristics including: pleasantness, disclosure of intimate and
private information and emotions, feeling understood, and the expressions of positive
feelings about the partner are fundamental descriptors of marital intimacy. Cordova and
Scott (2001) define intimacy as a process where individual vulnerable behaviors are
reinforced by one’s partner. The primary interactional behaviors found in intimacy
research include self-disclosure, partner responsiveness, and validation.
Self-disclosure. Self-disclosing personal details about oneself has been viewed
as an essential ingredient of intimacy (Derlega, 1984; Laurenceau et al., 2005; Prager,
1995; Waring & Chelune, 1983). Sharing thoughts and feelings with one’s partner
creates the opportunity for deeper levels of personal connection both cognitively and
emotionally with partners, thus facilitating relational intimacy. Researchers have
distinguished between disclosure of factual personal information and emotional personal
29
information with emphasis placed on the significance of disclosure of emotional content
to the process of relational intimacy development (Morton, 1978; Reis & Patrick, 1996).
Disclosure of emotional content contributes to intimacy in marital relationships (Lippert
& Prager, 2001; Mitchell et al., 2008), but the act of self-disclosure does not guarantee an
intimate interaction will occur or that intimacy between partners will increase. Multiple
factors including the context of the disclosure, the type of information revealed,
receptiveness of the listener, and the speaker’s perception of the listener’s response can
determine if self-disclosure facilitates intimacy.
The context in which self-disclosure occurs can influence the interaction’s effect
on intimacy (Chelune et al., 1984). Different settings (e.g., churches, restaurants,
classrooms, kitchens, bedrooms) influence the perceived appropriateness of self-
disclosure interactions, which can impede or facilitate marital intimacy. Disclosure
inappropriate for the setting can hinder intimacy; however, partner understanding (i.e.
how well each is known by the other) plays a greater role in the process of intimacy than
self-disclosure context (Chelune et al., 1984, p. 23). Disclosers with greater
understanding of their partner’s traits, needs, and motivations are more attuned to what is
considered appropriate by their partner in various contexts.
The type of information revealed during self-disclosure can influence if the
disclosure interaction facilitates intimacy in marital relationships. Waring et al. (1994)
found that “a positive cognitive disclosure pattern as opposed to a negative feeling
disclosure pattern” is linked with increase in marital intimacy (p. 144). However, under
the right conditions negative disclosures can also facilitate relational intimacy within
30
marital relationships. Swan, De La Ronde, and Hixon (1994) explain that the accurate
evaluation of limitations and/or faults (i.e., weaknesses) in a marital partner can offer the
opportunity to help in areas of need, and a cooperative effort between partners with each
providing support in areas of weakness can foster relational intimacy. Key to whether
self-disclosure facilitates intimacy will be the partner’s responsiveness and the discloser’s
perception of that response.
Partner responsiveness. Although self-disclosure is an important component of
intimacy in marital relationships, it alone is not a predictor of intimacy. During
interactive exchanges between partners, perceived partner responsiveness has been shown
to be an important factor in the interactive process of intimacy (Laurenceau et al., 2005;
Cordova & Scott, 2001). However, perceived partner responsiveness must express two
important qualities to facilitate relational intimacy. First, partner responses must support
an environment of emotional safety. As one spouse expresses interpersonal vulnerability
and the partner’s response is experienced as positive reinforcement, emotional safety is
experienced, which inspires more Openness and expression of deeper vulnerability.
Cordova and Scott (2001) explain that vulnerable behavior will increase in the presence
of reinforcement, but will decrease or terminate in the presence of emotional punishment.
Therefore, the level of intimacy experienced by couples will be influenced by the level of
emotional safety perceived by each partner. Burbee, Sparks, Paul, and Arnzen (2011)
propose that vulnerable interactions are required for the development of intimacy in
marital relationships, and vulnerable interactions which receive partner responses
31
described as affectionate, validating, and accepting will facilitate emotional safety, thus
increasing relational intimacy.
Accurate understanding is the second quality partner responsiveness must express
in order to facilitate intimacy. When perceived partner responsiveness coincides with
one’s view of self, the self is validated and one feels understood. Partner responsiveness
can also be described as an expression of the level of understanding one has for his or her
partner’s true self (i.e., traits, needs, and motivations). Reis and Patrick (1996) explain
that when perceived partner responsiveness to one’s disclosure aligns with one’s view of
self (i.e., the partner’s responses express understanding of the internal needs and
motivations of the discloser), intimacy increases because the discloser feels understood
and cared for by the responsive partner. “People desire genuine honest interactions that
reflect the participants ‘core selves’” (Reis & Patrick, 1996, p. 547). Partner
responsiveness is a core principle in the interactive process of marital intimacy. During
verbal and nonverbal communication, married partners increase their understanding of
each other, facilitating the reciprocal interaction of knowing and becoming known. Even
when unfavorable characteristics are revealed, research has shown that married partners
prefer to understand the strengths and weaknesses of each other, recognizing the value of
knowing the true “selves” of each other (Swan et al., 1994). Interestingly, Swan et al.
(1994) explain that dating partners preferred favorable partner evaluations even when
those evaluations were not accurate with self-reports. In contrast, married partners
preferred accurate partner responses, even when those responses revealed individual
weaknesses in the discloser. Swan et al. (1994) hypothesize their results support the
32
belief that married intimates have developed more acceptance of each other’s weaknesses
than dating couples and focus more on obtaining mutual goals. Reis, Clark, and Holmes
(2004) support this hypothesis and state, “the belief that one participates in an intimate
close relationship arises from processes of interaction during which, or as a result of
which, partners feel mutually responsive to each other’s important goals, needs,
dispositions, and values” (p. 203). Partner responsiveness is a key behavior within the
interactive process of marital intimacy as it facilitates understanding of partner needs,
motivations, and traits.
In addition to fostering increased partner understanding, partner responsiveness
offers couples an opportunity to validate each other in the process of intimate
interactions. Reis and Patrick (1996) have identified validation as one of the three
primary factors in the process of intimacy.
Validation. Validation is important to the process of marital health. Matthews
and Clark (1982) found that validating married partners experienced their relationship as
a stimulus toward intellectual and emotional growth, but recognized the need for future
research to expand the understanding of the “individual characteristics or interpersonal
processes which enable individuals to validate each other” (p. 184). Reis and Patrick
(1996) describe validation as the “central element of the intimacy process,” and define
validation as the “perception that an interaction partner values and respects one’s inner
self and point of view” (p. 550). Therefore, validation is the expression of value of one’s
partner and dependent upon the accuracy of partner understanding.
33
A partner’s inner self and point of view in various contexts must be understood
and known, at least at some minimum level, before validation can occur; otherwise, the
attempted validating expressions will miss the “true self” of the partner and not be
received as validating. Sullivan (1953) describes intimacy as a type of relationship that
“permits validation of all components of personal worth” and includes “adjustment of
one’s behavior to the expressed needs of the other person” (p. 246). When internal needs
and motivations are understood, praise and encouragement received from marital partners
more accurately supports the inner true self of each person, thus facilitating intimacy.
Research has shown that beneficial validation is more than just praise for achievement
and involves being liked for who one is intrinsically (Schimel, Arndt, Pyszczynski, &
Greenberg, 2001). Derlega (1984) supports the necessity of partner understanding and
explains that interactions are seen as validating when “one’s self-image corresponds with
others’ impressions” (p. 4). Therefore, validation between married partners that
facilitates intimacy requires a minimum level of accuracy in the cognitive perceptions of
the spouse validating his or her partner.
Cognitive Perceptions
Although overlapping elements and interactions between the behavioral,
cognitive, and affective attributes of relational intimacy exist, it is possible to explore and
discuss cognitive components separately. In order to differentiate cognitive components
of intimacy from behavioral and affective attributes, a shift of focus to deeper cognitive
processes is necessary. Chelune et al. (1984) explain that although self-disclosures are
important elements in building the subjective evaluations and expectancies between
34
partners and play a part in the cognitive process of intimacy, more essential to the process
of intimacy are the deeper meanings behind what is communicated in self-disclosures as
they are the cognitive material by which partners come to know the true self of each other
and become known by their partners. As interaction between partners takes place, a
cognitive database containing subjective thoughts, beliefs, and expectations of the
partner’s self is constructed. Intimacy increases as the accuracy and quantity of the
subjective meanings behind what is communicated increases, and partners come to know
and be known by each other. When discussing the impact of accurate partner knowledge
on marital relationships, Pollmann and Finkenauer (2009) state, “…they report greater
intimacy when their partner has a more accurate view of their characteristics” (p. 1513).
Monsour (1994) labels accurate partner knowledge as “mutual understanding” and
describes it as a “shared perceptual reality” which reveals similarities and dissimilarities
between two partners (p. 113). Monsour (1994) further explains that mutual
understanding between partners “lays the groundwork for building intimacy in a
relationship” (p. 129). As partners grow in their cognitive knowledge of each other, they
become aware of differences in their thought processes and perspectives. It is possible
that increased understanding of each other’s differences could hinder intimacy in the
relationship. However, the cognitive meanings each assigns to the other’s differences
determine whether increased understanding hinders or facilitates intimacy. When
partners value each other’s differences and attributes, it pulls the couple closer together
rather than pulling them apart (Monsour, 1994). When partners validate each other’s
35
unique cognitive attributes in an emotionally supportive manner, increased understanding
facilitates intimacy rather than hindering its development.
Emotional Support
Kersten and Himle (1991) define emotional support as expressions that are
receptive and accommodating of a partner’s feelings and emotions. Emotional support is
genuine, warm, and caring, and communicates a sense of understanding. Genuineness,
warmth, and caring have been recognized for many years as essential in building close
relationships (Horney, 1937; Rogers, 1961). Kersten and Himle (1991) explain that
significant emotional support requires a greater understanding of a partner’s personality,
values, and desires, and will be expressed in a variety of contexts. Emotional support that
facilitates intimacy confirms partner self-concept because it expresses an accurate
understanding of the partner’s perceptions of his or her feelings and emotions. Accurate
understanding of the marriage partner’s personality facilitates increased accuracy of
emotional support. Individuals who express emotional support for their partners both
during positive experiences and when their partners make a mistake or fail provide
evidence of their deeper understanding and willingness to support their partners.
Nonjudgmental emotional support that conveys understanding is a basic foundation in
martial intimacy (Kersten & Himle, 1991).
In this section, partner understanding has been explained as a common and
important factor in intimate behaviors including self-disclosure, partner responsiveness,
and validation. Partner understanding has also been presented as a vital part of both
36
cognitive perceptions and emotional support, two important attributes of intimate
relationships.
Intimacy as a Process
A well accepted model presented by Reis and Patrick (1996) describes intimacy
as an interpersonal process resulting in feeling cared for, validated, and understood by
one’s partner. The results of relationally intimate interactions (i.e., caring, validation, and
understanding), have some common attributes and overlap as the process of intimacy
develops within close relationships.
Caring
Caring is often ignored in the development of models of intimacy (Reis & Patrick,
1996), perhaps because it is described in relationship research using other terms such as
relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2002), affectional expression (Blais et al., 1990), liking
(Collins & Miller, 1994), unconditional positive regard (Rogers, 1961), and emotional
support (Kersten & Himle, 1991). Common aspects in each descriptive factor related to
caring includes a respect for and value of one’s partner and his or her internal affective
states. Therefore, Reis and Patrick (1996) compare caring to Rogers’ (1961)
unconditional positive regard, and can be further described as a qualitative characteristic
of validation.
Validation
Reis and Patrick (1996) explain validation as the act of understanding and placing
value upon a partner’s perspectives and view validation as a “central element in the
intimacy process” (p. 550). Marital partners experience validation when they express
37
respect for each other’s individual uniqueness and personal perspectives. Validation is
not just praise, but interactive feedback towards the true self of one’s partner (Schimel et
al., 2001). Therefore, validation is closely related to SDT’s autonomy. Skinner and Edge
(2002) describe autonomous experiences as those in which individuals respect and defer
to partners, “allowing them freedom of expression and action, and encouraging them to
attend to, accept, and value their inner states, preferences, and desires” (p. 303).
Research has shown autonomy is associated with increased Openness and desire to
understand one’s partner (Knee et al., 2005; 2002). Therefore, it is presumed that more
autonomous individuals would be more likely to respectfully seek to understand their
partner’s perspectives, which would be experienced as validating by their partners. Since
understanding is a factor in the process of intimacy, according to Reis and Patrick, it is
hypothesized that autonomy is associated with higher levels of intimacy between marital
partners because it expresses care and facilitates understanding.
Understanding
Understanding is a vital factor in the process of relational intimacy because it is
an essential component of validation (Reis & Patrick, 1996), constructive self-disclosure
(Chelune et al., 1984), cognitive perceptions (Pollmann & Finkenauer, 2009), and
emotional support (Kersten & Himle, 1991).
Understanding defined. Understanding in close relationships is defined by Reis
and Patrick (1996) as “the belief that an interaction partner has accurately and
appropriately perceived one’s inner self; that the partner gets the facts right about
important needs, affects, goals, beliefs, and life circumstances that constitute the central
38
core of the self” (p. 549). Understanding is not merely agreement, as understanding can
exist in the presence of disagreement. Understanding that facilitates intimacy involves
one’s awareness of a partner’s internal cognitions, emotions, and motives. Increased
understanding in intimate relationships can be seen as an alignment of thoughts as
Chelune et al. (1984) explain: “…an intimate relationship is a relational process in which
we come to know the innermost, subjective aspects of another, and are known in a like
manner” (p. 14). Therefore, understanding can be described as the level of accuracy in
perception of a partner’s core self.
Factors that contribute to understanding. Multiple factors contribute to
partner understanding in close relationships including the accuracy of the information
shared, the depth of the information shared, and the ability for married partners to
develop mutual meanings. Derlega (1984) emphasizes that the information shared
between partners about themselves must be true in order for each person to develop a true
picture of their partner’s self, and developing an accurate perception of a partner’s true
self is necessary in the process of intimacy. Research has shown that married couples
prefer their partner’s perceptions to be accurate (i.e., correlate to self-perceptions) rather
than inaccurate or exaggerated, even when those perceptions accurately see one’s
weaknesses and unflattering attributes (Swan et al., 1994).
Depth of information is another important factor that contributes to
understanding. Several external facts can be known about another person. However, to
develop the type of understanding that facilitates intimacy, it is necessary for one to
understand the motives and how one’s partner makes sense of things internally (Duck,
39
1994). In their definition of understanding, Reis and Patrick (1996) emphasize the
importance that each partner “gets the facts right about important needs, affects, goals,
beliefs, and life circumstances that constitute the central core of the self” (p. 549).
Understanding develops as a partner’s personal and private information is gathered into
an organized collection, and the collected information is an accurate portrayal of the
internal motives, traits, and needs of the partner.
Another important factor that contributes to understanding in close relationships is
one’s ability to grasp the meanings within his or her partner’s mind. Duck (1994) calls
this ability an “extended mutual comprehension or a world of shared meanings” (p. 22).
He describes shared meanings as a process of perceiving what is in a partner’s mind,
comparing it to one’s own meanings, identifying the associations, and being able to
cognitively work with the contrasts and/or similarities between meanings. Limitations in
this ability will impede the development of partner understanding within a relationship.
Relationship between understanding and intimacy. A large body of literature
exists which proposes understanding between partners as a key factor in relational
intimacy (Chelune et al., 1984; Clark & Reis, 1988; Cross & Gore, 2004; Derlega, 1984;
Duck, 1994; Laurenceau, Rivera, Schaffer, & Pietromonaco, 2004; Prager, 1995; Prager
& Roberts, 2004; Reis & Patrick, 1996; Reis et al., 2004; Roberts & Greenberg, 2002).
Prager and Roberts (2004) propose two important factors in marital intimate
understanding: the extensiveness and accuracy of a partner’s internal aspects.
Extensiveness is the amount of intimate interactions and the quality of those interactions
between intimate partners. Prager and Roberts (2004) appraise quality interactions as
40
those which disclose accurate and personal information, reflect positive regard for one’s
partner, and promote increased understanding of each other’s internal experiences and
perspectives. In addition to extensiveness, Prager and Roberts (2004) present accuracy
as an important factor in marital intimate understanding and describe its importance as
“indicative and predictive of the degree and quality of the relational intimacy a couple
achieves” (p. 47).
Reis and Patrick (1996) present understanding as the foundational factor in the
process of intimacy and describe it as “…a prerequisite for validation and caring” (p.
550). In spite of its significance to relational intimacy, understanding is not equivalent to
intimacy, and understanding alone does not facilitate intimacy. Multiple other factors
(e.g. validation, caring, acceptance, etc.) contribute to the process of intimacy and, as
previously explained, autonomy is correlated with many of the factors which contribute
to relational intimacy in marriage. Chelune et al. (1984) explain the importance of
understanding and autonomous-related factors (e.g., acceptance) to intimacy as follows:
It seems to be of central importance to people to be able to share with others all
aspects of themselves, and to feel understood and accepted as the people they are.
It is also important to know, understand, and accept people thoroughly at the same
time. In an intimate relationship, these processes occur simultaneously and
reciprocally. (p. 29)
In their research, Knee et al. (2002) found that autonomy was associated with attempts to
better understand one’s romantic partner through approach behaviors and communicative
clarification efforts, and, more specifically, that autonomous men are “…more open and
41
flexible when it comes to interpreting feedback from their partner” (p. 617). Thus it can
be hypothesized that autonomy and partner understanding work synergistically in
facilitating relational intimacy, and that autonomy is necessary for the full impact of
partner understanding to influence intimacy in marital relationships.
Based upon the research and literature reviewed, it was hypothesized that
understanding as assessed by COA and autonomy as defined by SDT represent a major
portion of the variables involved in the facilitation of relational intimacy in married
couples. In spite of the number of sources found supporting the relationship between
partner understanding, autonomy, and intimacy, no studies have been found which assess
the relationship between these variables within a single study.
42
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
Both autonomy and the ability to understand one’s partner are important factors in
the development of relational intimacy in dyadic relationships (Ryan & Deci, 2006;
Pollmann & Finkenauer, 2009; Sanderson & Cantor, 2001). This chapter presents the
methodology which was used to evaluate the correlation between autonomy, partner
understanding and the relational intimacy reported by married couples.
Research Design
This study utilized a cross-sectional correlational design to examine the
correlation between the independent variables Autonomy, and Partner Understanding,
and one dependent variable, Intimacy, in a sample of heterosexual married couples. The
study was conducted to determine if Autonomy and Partner Understanding were
significant predictors of Intimacy. Cross-sectional designed studies are used to evaluate
subjects’ current circumstances or characteristics and are suitable for correlational
assessments (Kazdin, 2003). Correlational assessments (e.g., bivariate, multiple
regression), can be used to determine if independent variables significantly predict a
dependent variable (Licht, 1995).
Selection of Participants
To differentiate from similar studies examining personality traits and intimacy,
but which utilized college students as participants (Engel, Olson, & Patrick, 2002; Stern,
1999; White, Hendrick, & Hendrick, 2004), the researcher recruited participants from
suburban Midwestern churches. It was expected the sample of participants would include
couples with longer relationships than college student samples used in other studies and
43
would therefore be a better representation of intimacy experienced by married couples.
Church leaders at selected churches were given a copy of the Letter to Church Leader
(Appendix B), which provided a brief description of the study and listed the tasks to be
completed by the church leader if he or she agreed to assist with the study. If the church
leader agreed to help with the study, he or she agreed to read and/or post the Research
Study Announcement (Appendix C) during church services, meetings, or events. The
church leader also agreed to collect the names and contact information of participants
using the Name/Contact Information form (Appendix D), and distribute questionnaire
packets provided by the researcher to all couples who volunteered to participate. Church
leaders also agreed to destroy the Name/Contact Information form six months after the
study completion date. Church leaders agreed to make the overall study results available
to participants. The overall study results will be provided to the church leader by the
researcher.
Participants were married couples who volunteered to complete a packet of
questionnaires distributed by the church leader. Participants signed the Name/Contact
Information form provided by the church leader and provided their contact information.
Upon completion of the questionnaires in the packet, participants returned the packets to
the church leader, and the packets were stored in a secure place. The packets were later
picked up by the researcher. On the consent form included in the packet, participants
were provided the address and contact information of local professional counseling
agencies. In the event that participants experienced an emotional disturbance as a result
of participating in the study, they were instructed to contact one of the counseling
44
agencies to address their needs. Only churches within driving distance of one of the
counseling agency offices were contacted to participate in this study. After final approval
of the dissertation committee overall results will be provided to each church leader. If
participants desire their individual results from the study they may contact the researcher
directly through the email address provided.
Instrumentation
Participants received a questionnaire packet containing a consent form (Appendix
E) and the following questionnaires: a Demographic Information form (Appendix A), the
Self-Determination Scale (SDS), the NEO-FFI-3 form S, the NEO-FFI-3 form R, and the
Intimate Safety Questionnaire (ISQ). At the time of this writing the SDS is available
online at http://www.selfdeterminationtheory.org/, the NEO-FFI-3 forms available from
Psychological Assessment Resources Inc. at www.parinc.com, and the ISQ available
from Clark University at http://www.clarku.edu/research/coupleslab/resources.htm.
Demographic information. Participants completed a demographic information
form which included questions regarding gender, age, race/ethnicity, and education level.
Additionally, since intimacy develops over time (Prager, 1995; Reis & Patrick, 1996), the
demographic information form contained questions related to marriage duration including
number of times married and length of current marriage in years.
The Self-Determination Scale. The Self-Determination Scale (SDS) was used to
assess trait autonomy as defined by Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Sheldon et al.,
1996). SDT defines autonomy as the intrinsic motivation to act in a way endorsed by the
whole self, fully chosen and determined by one’s self. The SDS is a 10-item scale with
45
two 5-item subscales. The first subscale is Self-Contact (i.e., consciousness of oneself),
and the second is Choicefulness, defined as perceived choice of one’s behaviors (Sheldon
et al., 1996). Participants selected a score on a Likert-type scale (1-5) to choose which of
two statements is more true. For example, “My emotions sometimes seem alien to me”
versus “My emotions always seem to belong to me” is an item on the Self-Contact
subscale. An item on the Choicefulness subscale is, “I always feel like I choose the
things I do” versus “I sometimes feel that it’s not really me choosing the things I do.”
Items on the Choicefulness subscale are reverse scored so a higher score represents a
higher level of autonomy. According to Sheldon et al. (1996) “the scale has good
internal consistency (alphas ranging from .85 to .93 in numerous samples) and adequate
test-retest reliability (r = .77 over an 8-week period)” (p. 1273). Research has shown the
SDS to be a strong predictor of positive mental health factors including empathy, life
satisfaction, creativity, and resistance to peer pressure (Grow, Sheldon, & Ryan, 1994;
Sheldon, 1995; Sheldon & Deci, 1996; as cited in Sheldon et al., 1996) and autonomy of
individuals in romantic relationships (Knee et al., 2005).
NEO Five-Factor Inventory-3. The NEO Five-Factor Inventory-3 (NEO-FFI-3)
is a shortened form (60 items) of the NEO-PI-3 (240 items), which assesses personality
traits along five primary domains: Neuroticism (N), Extraversion (E), Openness (O),
Agreeableness (A), and Conscientiousness (C) (McCrae & Costa, 2010). The NEO-FFI-
3 domain scale scores show a high correlation to the full version NEO-PI-3 scales (N =
.93, E = .91, O = .90, A = .93, and C = .93) and internal consistency ranging from .77 (O)
to .88 (C). The NEO-FFI-3 is a copyrighted instrument available from Psychological
46
Assessment Resources (PAR: http://www4.parinc.com/) in a self-report form (form S)
and a rater report (form R). Form S was used as a self-report form to assess one’s
personality around the five primary personality domains. Form R was used as a rater
(i.e., observer) report to measure an individual’s perspective of his or her partner’s
personality. Each participant completed an NEO-FFI-3 form S (self-report) and form R
(rater report). Each participant’s rater report scale scores were compared to his or her
partner’s self-report scale scores and an Index of Profile Agreement coefficient (IPA) was
calculated. The IPA is a measure of correlation between one’s self-report and the
partner’s rater report with a larger IPA representing a greater understanding one has of
partner personality, motivations, and needs (Piedmont, 1998). The IPA ranges between
zero and one, similar to a correlation coefficient, but calculates correlation taking into
consideration both the magnitude and pattern of discrepancies between self and rater
scores (McCrae, 2008).
Intimate Safety Questionnaire (ISQ). The Intimate Safety Questionnaire (ISQ)
is a 28-item instrument which was used to measure intimacy. The ISQ was designed to
assess the level of intimate safety experienced by individuals in a dyadic relationship.
According to Cordova (2002), intimate safety develops through a process of behavioral
reinforcement when one reinforces the vulnerable behavior of his or her partner rather
than reacting in a way that is experienced as punishment. Interpersonal vulnerable
behavior that is reinforced will increase. As the interactive process of reinforced
vulnerable behavior unfolds, felt safety is experienced and relationship intimacy
increases. Items on the ISQ include “When I am with my partner I feel safe and
47
comfortable,” “I feel comfortable telling my partner when I’m feeling scared/anxious,”
and “I am comfortable being physically affectionate with my partner.” Participants rated
each statement on a 5-point scale (0 = Never to 4 = Always). The ISQ has been shown to
be significantly correlated with the Global Distress Scale of the Marital Satisfaction
Inventory (Snyder, 1979), the Marital Status Inventory (Weiss & Cerreto, 1980), and
partner’s attachment styles (Hazan & Shaver, 1990). The ISQ has been shown to be a
reliable predictor of marital intimacy (Cordova et al., 2005; Mirgain & Cordova, 2007).
Mirgain and Cordova (2007) report the ISQ has internal reliability alphas of .93 for men
and .96 for women with test-retest reliability over a one-month period of .83 for men and
.92 for women.
Research Procedures
A request for approval of this research study was submitted to Liberty
University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). To request their assistance in the study, a
copy of the Letter to Church Leaders was emailed to church leaders at churches within
driving distance of one of the counseling agencies listed on the Consent form. A copy of
the Research Study Announcement and an appropriate number of questionnaire packets
was delivered to church leaders who agreed to assist with the study. The church leaders
agreed to read and/or post the Research Study Announcement to church attendees and
distribute questionnaire packets to individuals who were willing to participate in the
study. Church leaders assured participants signed the Name/Contact Information form.
Once IRB approved the study, the researcher contacted church leaders and provided them
with the questionnaire packets, which the church leaders distributed to the study
48
participants. Upon completion of the questionnaires, participants returned them back to
the church leader who stored them in a secure location. The packets were then picked up
by the researcher and stored in a secure location. Questionnaire responses were entered
into a statistical software program for evaluation and the results reported in Chapter Four
of the study.
Research Hypotheses
This study was designed to examine the relationship between autonomy, partner
understanding, and relational intimacy in married couples. Autonomy is an important
factor for individual well-being and relationship health (Ryan & Deci, 2006).
Understanding one’s partner provides the framework for intimacy to develop and the
process by which intimacy unfolds in relationships (Reis & Patrick, 1996). Personality
traits are enduring intrapersonal factors that can have an influence on the quality of one’s
relationship with an intimate partner (Piedmont, 1998). However, Neuroticism and
Agreeableness have shown the most profound impact upon interpersonal relationships
(Donnellan et al., 2004), while the remaining three trait domains (i.e., Extraversion,
Openness, Conscientiousness) have shown mixed results (Bouchard et al., 1999; Karney
& Bradbury, 1997; Kosek, 1996; Rogge et al., 2006). Based upon the importance of
personality traits, autonomy, and partner understanding in the development of relational
intimacy, the following hypotheses were proposed:
Hypothesis 1: Neuroticism is significantly inversely correlated with intimacy.
More specifically, individuals reporting higher Neuroticism will also report less intimacy
experienced in their marital relationship.
49
Null Hypothesis 1: There is no correlation between Neuroticism and intimacy.
Hypothesis 2: Agreeableness is significantly correlated with intimacy. More
specifically, individuals reporting higher Agreeableness will also report higher levels of
intimacy experienced in their marital relationship.
Null Hypothesis 2: There is no correlation between Agreeableness and intimacy.
Hypothesis 3: Extraversion is not significantly correlated with intimacy.
Null Hypothesis 3: Extraversion is significantly correlated with intimacy.
Hypothesis 4: Openness is not significantly correlated with intimacy.
Null Hypothesis 4: Openness is significantly correlated with intimacy.
Hypothesis 5: Conscientiousness is not significantly correlated with intimacy.
Null Hypothesis 5: Conscientiousness is significantly correlated with intimacy.
Hypothesis 6: Self-reported autonomy is significantly correlated with self-
reported intimacy after controlling for personality. More specifically, individuals
reporting higher autonomy will also report higher levels of intimacy experienced in their
marital relationship after statistically controlling for both self-reported and spouse self-
reported personality traits.
Null Hypothesis 6: There is no correlation between self-reported autonomy and
self-reported intimacy.
Hypothesis 7: Partner understanding is significantly correlated with self-reported
intimacy after controlling for personality. More specifically, individuals with lower
discrepancy between their partner’s rater-report on the NEO-FFI-3 and their own self-
50
report, will report higher levels of intimacy experienced in their marital relationship after
statistically controlling for both self-reported and spouse self-reported personality traits.
Null Hypothesis 7: Partner understanding is not correlated to self-reported
intimacy.
Data Processing and Analysis
Three research questions were examined in this study. First, Do Personality,
Partner Understanding, and Autonomy correlate with Intimacy? A zero-order correlation
was used to address the first research question. The second research question was
addressed for each spouse using a hierarchical multiple regression analysis to determine
if self-reported Autonomy correlated with self-reported Intimacy experienced in the
marriage after controlling for both self-reported Personality and Partner Personality. The
third research question was also addressed for each spouse using a hierarchical multiple
regression analysis to determine if Partner Understanding, as determined by COA,
correlated with the Partner Intimacy in the marriage after controlling for both self-
reported Personality and Partner Personality.
Personality traits can have an enduring influence on psychological and
relationship health (McCrae & Costa, 2003). McCrae and Costa (2010) describe
Neuroticism as the most pervasive personality trait, and Donnellan et al. (2004) have
suggested Agreeableness may be as important as Neuroticism in its influence on the
health of close relationships. Research has also shown Extraversion, Openness, and
Conscientiousness to be related to marital health (Botwin et al., 1997; Watson et al.,
2000). Due to the possibility of all five personality traits of each individual and spouse
51
personality traits to have an influence on the level of intimacy experienced in the marital
relationship, the potential influence of traits was statistically controlled for in the study.
A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was performed on the scores for each spouse.
To address the second research question, self-reported Intimacy was regressed
upon self-reported Autonomy after controlling for both Personality and Partner
Personality. To address the third research question, self-reported Intimacy was regressed
upon Partner Understanding after controlling for both Personality and Partner
Personality. For example, the husband’s Partner Understanding will be an Index of
Profile Agreement (IPA), which is a congruence coefficient obtained by calculating the
extent to which his rater report scores and his wife’s self-report scores on the NEO-FFI-3
are similar (Piedmont & Rodgerson, 2013). The IPA reflects both the distance between
the rater and self-report assessments, and the extremeness of their mean, and has been
found to be the preferred method when computing correlations between rater and self-
reports of the five trait domains scored in the NEO-FFI-3 (McCrae, 2008).
Summary
In summary, this chapter discussed the methods that were used to complete the
study. The research design was discussed, which included an explanation of how
participants were selected and the instruments used to assess the variables. The research
hypotheses and research procedures were presented. Finally, the data processing and
analysis section described the research questions and statistical procedures that were used
to assess the data.
52
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between autonomy,
partner understanding, and relational intimacy in a sample of heterosexual married
couples. This chapter presents the results of the statistical analysis of the three research
questions guiding this study along with their corresponding hypotheses. Chapter Four
ends with a summary of the findings.
Demographics
A total of 112 heterosexual married couples (224 individuals) participated in the
study. However, during scoring six questionnaire packets were rejected from inclusion in
the final data due to missing entire questionnaires in the returned packet, or omitting a
substantial number of responses on questionnaires. A total of 106 couple questionnaire
packets (212 individuals) were included in the final data for this study. Bivariate
correlation was used to analyze the demographic data (see Table 2) to ensure no
significant correlations between variables exist which could introduce statistical error into
the study. No statistically significant relationships were found between demographic
variables.
Research Question One
The first of three research questions guiding this study is: “Do Personality,
Partner Understanding, and Autonomy correlate with Intimacy?” Bivariate correlation
analysis was used to evaluate the variables.
53
Table 2
Demographic Frequencies of Participant Sample
Demographic Type n Percentage Gender Female 106 50% Male 106 50% Age <24 7 3.3% 25-29 22 10.4% 30-39 42 19.8% 40-49 54 25.5% 50-59 66 31.1% 60-69 17 8.0% 70+ 4 1.9% Ethnic/racial group African American 2 0.9% Hispanic 3 1.4% American Indian 2 0.9% Caucasian 204 96.2% Other 1 0.5% Highest Education Completed High school 65 30.7% 2-year college 30 14.2% 4-year college 75 35.4% Graduate school 42 19.8% 1 155 73.1% Number times married 2 32 15.1% 3+ 24 11.3% <2 19 9.0% Years in current marriage 2-5 26 12.3% 6-10 40 18.9% 11-19 43 20.3% 20-29 38 17.9% 30-39 36 17.0% 40+ 10 4.7%
54
Personality
It was hypothesized there would be a negative correlation between Neuroticism
and Intimacy, and a positive correlation between Agreeableness and Intimacy. Results
(see Table 3) show Neuroticism was negatively correlated with Intimacy (r = -.308, p <
.01), and as expected, Agreeableness (r = .247, p < .01) was significantly predictive of
Intimacy. Also as hypothesized, Openness and Conscientiousness were not statistically
significant predictors of Intimacy. It was hypothesized Extraversion would not be
significantly correlated with Intimacy. Surprisingly, Extraversion (r = .244, p < .01) was
shown to be significantly predictive of Intimacy.
Partner Understanding
It was hypothesized Partner Understanding would be significantly correlated with
Intimacy. Partner Understanding was calculated using Cross Observer Analysis to
compare rater-report personality domain scores with partner self-report personality
domain scores (Piedmont, 1998). Greater Partner Understanding is reflected by a higher
match between rater scores and self-reported partner scores. Results show Partner
Understanding (r = .098, p < .05) was not significantly correlated with Intimacy.
Autonomy
It was hypothesized Autonomy would be significantly correlated with Intimacy
after statistically controlling for Personality and Partner Personality. Consistent with
Self-Determination theory, which maintains Autonomy supports healthy relationship
factors, Autonomy (r = .328, p < .01) was shown to be a significant predictor of Intimacy.
55
Autonomy showed the highest correlation with Intimacy among all variables in the
correlation matrix.
56
Table 3
Correlations of Intimacy with measures of Personality, Partner Understanding, and
Autonomy
N E O A C PAU AUT INT
N 1
E -.451** 1
O -.025 .168* 1
A -.232** .174* .047 1
C -.198** .046 .069 .055 1
PAU -.144* .121 .029 .165* .132 1
AUT -.133 .011 .022 .066 .113 .094 1
INT -.308** .244** .069 .247** .081 .098 .328** 1
Note. N= Neuroticism; E=Extraversion; O=Openness; A=Agreeableness;
C=Conscientiousness; PAU=Partner Understanding; AUT=Autonomy; INT=Intimacy.
*p ≤ .05 **p ≤ .01
57
Research Question Two
The second research question is: “Does self-reported Autonomy correlate with
self-reported Intimacy experienced in the marriage after controlling for Personality?” It
was hypothesized there would be a significant correlation between Autonomy and
Intimacy after statistically controlling for the five domains of self-reported Personality
and the five domains of self-reported Partner Personality.
Regression Analysis
Hierarchical multiple regression analysis (see Table 4) revealed all independent
variables accounted for a little over 22% of the variance in the dependent variable
Intimacy. Each of the three steps in the regression were statistically significant (R2 =
.140, ΔR2 = .049, and ΔR2 = .032) respectively. In the first step, Intimacy was regressed
on Personality, which includes the five personality domains (Neuroticism, Extraversion,
Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness). Results show self-reported
Personality (R2 = .140) predicts approximately 14% of the variance in Intimacy.
In the second step, Intimacy was regressed on Partner Personality which includes
the five domains of personality from the partner’s self-report personality assessment.
Although not as strong of a predictor as self-reported Personality, Partner Personality
(ΔR2 = .049) accounted for approximately 5% of the unique variance in Intimacy. As
expected, the combined influence of both Personality and Partner Personality (R2 = .189)
accounts for a statistically significant amount, about 19%, of the unique variance in
Intimacy.
58
The third and final step of the regression analysis regressed Intimacy on
Autonomy. Autonomy (ΔR2 = .032) accounts for a statistically significant amount of the
variance in Intimacy, approximately 3%, after controlling for Personality and Partner
Personality. Further analysis is needed to determine the unique variance in Intimacy
accounted for by the five individual Personality and Partner Personality domains, and
Autonomy.
Unique Variance
To determine unique variance, Standardized Beta Coefficients (β) should be used
when the independent variables in a multiple regression analysis utilize different scales of
measurement (Keith, 2006). Standardized Beta Coefficients are reported in standard
deviation units allowing comparison across variables with differing raw score metrics.
59
Table 4
Hierarchical Regression Predicting Unique Variances on Intimacy
Step and predictor variable R2 ΔR2 F Change
Step 1 0.140** 0.140** 6.702**
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Step 2 0.189* 0.049* 2.409*
Partner Neuroticism
Partner Extraversion
Partner Openness
Partner Agreeableness
Partner Conscientiousness
Step 3 0.221* 0.032* 3.237*
Autonomy Dependent Variable: Intimacy
**p ≤ .001 *p ≤ .05
60
In this study, Personality and Partner Personality were assessed using the NEO-
FFI-3 instruments. Autonomy was assessed using the Self-Determination Scale, which
utilizes different metrics than the NEO-FFI-3 instruments. Standardized Beta
Coefficients (see Table 5) were examined. Review of the five Personality domains shows
Agreeableness (β = 0.170, t = 2.588) to be a significant predictor of Intimacy.
Surprisingly, Neuroticism (β = -.125, t = -1.575) was not a significant predictor of
Intimacy in the third step of this regression. The remaining three Personality domains
(Extraversion, Openness, and Conscientiousness) were also not significant predictors of
Intimacy. Results show Autonomy (β = .204, t = 2.870) to be the largest unique predictor
of Intimacy in the regression.
61
Table 5
Standardized Beta Coefficients Regression Analysis Predicting the Unique Variances on
Intimacy after Accounting for Self and Partner Personality
Variable β t Sig.
Neuroticism -.125 -1.575 .117
Extraversion .119 1.630 .105
Openness .023 .344 .731
Agreeableness .170* 2.588* .010*
Conscientiousness -.010 -.151 .880
Partner Neuroticism -.125 -1.639 .103
Partner Extraversion .043 .599 .550
Partner Openness .052 .778 .437
Partner Agreeableness .039 .595 .553
Partner Conscientiousness .056 .853 .394
Autonomy .204* 2.870* .005*
Dependent Variable: Intimacy *p<.05
62
Research Question Three
Research question three is: “Does Partner Understanding, as determined by COA,
correlate with Partner Intimacy reported in the marriage after controlling for
Personality?” It was anticipated there would be a significant correlation between Partner
Understanding and Partner Intimacy after statistically controlling for both self-reported
personality domains and partner self-reported personality domains. The third and final
step of the regression analysis regressed Partner Intimacy on Partner Understanding.
Regression Analysis
Hierarchical multiple regression analysis (see Table 6) revealed all independent
variables accounted for about 19% of the variance in the dependent variable Partner
Intimacy. Only Step 1 (Personality) and Step 2 (Partner Personality) were statistically
significant. In the first step, Intimacy was regressed on Personality, which includes the
five personality domains (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and
Conscientiousness). Results show self-reported Personality (R2 = .053) predicts
approximately 5% of the variance in Intimacy.
63
Table 6
Hierarchical Regression Predicting Unique Variances on Partner Intimacy
Step and predictor variable R2 ΔR2 F Change
Step 1 0.053* 0.053* 2.285*
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Step 2 0.189* 0.136* 6.737*
Partner Neuroticism
Partner Extraversion
Partner Openness
Partner Agreeableness
Partner Conscientiousness
Step 3 0.189 0.000 0.026
Partner Understanding Dependent Variable: Partner Intimacy
*p ≤ .05
64
In the second step, Partner Intimacy was regressed on Partner Personality, which
represents the five domains of personality from the partner’s self-report personality
assessment. In this regression, Partner Personality (ΔR2 = .136) was shown to be the
largest predictor (13.6%) of the unique variance in Partner Intimacy. As expected, the
combined influence of both Personality and Partner Personality accounts for a
statistically significant amount of the variance in Partner Intimacy. The third and final
step of the regression analysis regressed Partner Intimacy on Partner Understanding.
Partner Understanding (ΔR2 = .000) did not account for a significant amount of the
variance in Partner Intimacy after statistically controlling for Personality and Partner
Personality. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis revealed all independent variables
accounted for approximately 19% of the variance in the dependent variable Partner
Intimacy. Further analysis is needed to determine the unique variance in Partner
Intimacy accounted for by the five domains of Personality, Partner Personality, and
Partner Understanding.
Unique Variance
To determine unique variance, Standardized Beta Coefficients (β) were examined
(see Table 7). Review of the five Personality domains shows Neuroticism (β = -.157, t =
-2.037) to be a significant predictor of Partner Intimacy. The remaining four Personality
domains (Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness) were not
significant predictors of Partner Intimacy.
Standardized Beta Coefficients for Partner Personality domains were examined
next. Partner Neuroticism (β = -.192, t = -2.484), and Partner Agreeableness (β = .179, t
65
= 2.662) were both shown to be significant predictors of Partner Intimacy. Partner
Neuroticism was negatively correlated with Partner Intimacy and the largest predictor of
Partner Intimacy in the regression. However, the remaining three Partner Personality
domains (Partner Extraversion, Partner Openness, and Partner Conscientiousness) were
not significant predictors of Partner Intimacy. Results show Partner Understanding (β = -
.011, t = -.163) was not a statistically significant predictor of Intimacy.
66
Table 7
Standardized Beta Coefficients Regression Analysis Predicting the Unique Variances on
Partner Intimacy after Accounting for Self and Partner Personality
Variable β t Sig.
Neuroticism -.157* -2.037* .043*
Extraversion .038 .509 .611
Openness .046 .678 .498
Agreeableness .047 .705 .482
Conscientiousness .068 1.010 .314
Partner Neuroticism -.192* -2.484* .014*
Partner Extraversion .141 1.897 .059
Partner Openness -.005 -.072 .942
Partner Agreeableness .179* 2.662* .008*
Partner Conscientiousness .020 .293 .770
Partner Understanding -.011 -.163 .871
Dependent Variable: Partner Intimacy *p<.05
67
Summary
A participant sample of 106 married couples was used in this study. Bivariate
correlation analysis was utilized to answer the first research question: “Do Personality,
Partner Understanding, and Autonomy correlate with Intimacy?” Results showed
Agreeableness, Extraversion, and Autonomy to be significantly correlated with Intimacy.
Neuroticism was shown to be negatively correlated with Intimacy, while the remaining
Personality domains and Partner Understanding were not significant predictors of
Intimacy.
Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was utilized to examine the second
research question: “Does self-reported Autonomy correlate with self-reported Intimacy
experienced in the marriage after controlling for Personality?” Autonomy was
determined to be a significant predictor of Intimacy after controlling for Personality
domains and Partner Personality domains.
Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was also utilized to examine the third
research question: “Does Partner Understanding, as determined by COA, correlate with
Partner Intimacy reported in the marriage after controlling for Personality?” Results
show Partner Understanding is not a significant predictor of Partner Intimacy. Further
discussion of the results are given in Chapter Five.
68
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Close interpersonal relationships are an important part of well-being. Various
views exist regarding the constructs that form relational intimacy (Finchham & Beach,
2010; Karney, 2007; Prager, 1995; Reis, 1990; Wright et al., 2007; Young, 2004). Reis
and Patrick (1996) describe intimacy as a process which develops when two people share
a relationship described as caring, validating, and understanding.
Autonomy has been linked to the expression of care and validation within
interpersonal relationships (Blais et al., 1990; La Guardia & Patrick, 2008; Weinstein et
al., 2010) and partner understanding has been identified as a key factor in relational
intimacy (Chelune et al., 1984; Clark & Reis, 1988; Cross & Gore, 2004; Derlega, 1984;
Duck, 1994; Laurenceau et al., 2004; Prager, 1995; Prager & Roberts, 2004; Reis et al.,
2004; Roberts & Greenberg, 2002). Individual personality traits have also been shown to
influence interpersonal relationship quality (Dyrenforth et al., 2010; Holland & Roisman,
2008; Robins et al., 2000; Shiota & Levenson, 2007; White et al., 2004), and can have a
major impact on relationship health (Piedmont, 1998). Although closeness within
interpersonal relationships has been shown to be related to autonomy, partner
understanding, and individual personality traits, no studies have been found that assess
the relationship between autonomy, partner understanding, and intimacy while
controlling for personality traits in marital relationships.
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between Autonomy,
Partner Understanding as measured by COA, and relational Intimacy in heterosexual
married couples. The study was guided by the following three research questions:
69
1. Do Personality, Partner Understanding, and Autonomy correlate with Intimacy?
2. Does self-reported Autonomy correlate with self-reported Intimacy experienced in
the marriage after controlling for Personality?
3. Does Partner Understanding, as determined by COA, correlate with the partner’s
Intimacy reported in the marriage after controlling for Personality?
Research Question One
The first research question addressed was: “Do Personality, Partner
Understanding, and Autonomy correlate with Intimacy?” It was hypothesized some of
the five domains of personality, Partner Understanding, and Autonomy, would be
significantly correlated with intimacy in the marital relationships of the participant
sample. Bivariate correlation was used to assess the relationship between variables. A
correlation matrix was developed and results presented in Table 3 in the previous chapter.
Personality
Although there has been disagreement regarding the stability of personality
throughout an individual lifespan (Roberts & Mroczek, 2008), McCrae and Costa (2003)
argue personality traits are relatively enduring across lifespan development and much of
the variance assessed in traits at different time periods reflect variance in trait expression
as life roles and environments change, but are not a reflection of change in traits. Due to
their relative stability and permanence throughout the lifespan, personality traits were
statistically controlled when examining the relationship between Autonomy, Partner
Understanding, and Intimacy in this study. Direct correlations between Personality,
Partner Personality, and Intimacy were also examined.
70
Neuroticism. Although results are mixed when comparing all traits, previous
research has shown Neuroticism to consistently be the most pervasive personality trait
affecting relationship factors (Karney & Bradbury, 1995, 1997; Robins et al., 2000;
Rogge et al., 2006). This study shows Neuroticism (r = -.308) was negatively correlated
with Intimacy, and statistically the most influential personality trait predictive of
Intimacy. This means participants reporting higher levels of Neuroticism reported lower
levels of Intimacy, and conversely, those reporting lower levels of Neuroticism reported
higher levels of Intimacy experienced in their marriage. McCrae and Costa (2003)
describe those reporting lower levels of Neuroticism as emotionally steady, composed,
and easy-going and during difficult circumstances are less likely to become distressed,
anxious, or emotionally distraught. Therefore the results in this study are consistent with
previous research showing individuals scoring higher in Neuroticism would also be
expected to score lower in Intimacy.
Agreeableness. Individuals scoring high in Agreeableness are described as
altruistic, sympathetic, helpful, and cooperative with others (McCrae & Costa, 2003).
Previous research has shown Agreeableness to be significantly related to marital
satisfaction (Botwin et al., 1997; Donnellan et al., 2004; Kosek, 1996; Watson et al.,
2000). Donnellan et al. (2004) suggest agreeable spouses may better manage
intrapersonal emotional tension, thus lowering the frequency and/or intensity of relational
conflict, which in turn would support relational intimacy in the marriage. They also
suggest Agreeableness may be as influential as Neuroticism on relational health. As was
hypothesized in this study, Agreeableness (r = .247) showed significant statistical
71
correlation with Intimacy, which coincides with previous research. Participants reporting
higher levels of Agreeableness also reported higher levels of Intimacy in their marriage.
Extraversion. Previous research assessing the correlation between Extraversion
and factors of marital health have been mixed with a few studies showing significant
positive correlation (Lazarides et al., 2010; Watson et al., 2000), while others have found
no significant correlation (Bouchard et al., 1999; Gattis et al., 2004). Extroverts are
described as sociable, active, talkative, and preferring large gatherings of people over
being alone (McCrae & Costa, 2003). Based upon previous mixed results in the
literature, it was hypothesized Extraversion would not be significantly correlated with
Intimacy. However, results in this study showed Extraversion (r = .244) to be
significantly correlated with Intimacy. Participants reporting higher levels of
Extraversion also reported higher levels of Intimacy in their marriage. Surprisingly, the
strength of the correlation between Extraversion and Intimacy (.244) was very close to
the correlation results between Agreeableness and Intimacy in this study (.247). A
possible explanation for this similarity in the strength of the correlation results could be
the number of items within the Intimate Safety Questionnaire (ISQ) that relate closely to
both Agreeableness and Extraversion as assessed by the NEO-FFI-3. McCrae and Costa
(2003) describe those scoring higher in Agreeableness as altruistic, sympathetic, helpful,
and cooperative with others. The ISQ includes questions related to these Agreeableness
factors such as, “When I need to cry I go to my partner,” “When I am with my partner I
feel safe and comfortable,” and the reverse scored “When I am with my partner I feel
anxious, like I’m walking on eggshells.” McCrae and Costa (2003) describe extroverts as
72
sociable and talkative, and likewise, the ISQ includes items related to these factors of
Extraversion such as, “I like to tell my partner about my day,” “I feel comfortable telling
my partner things I would not tell anyone else,” and “When things aren’t going well for
me, it’s comforting to talk to my partner.”
Openness. McCrae and Costa (2003) describe individuals scoring high on
Openness as curious, willing to consider and accept new ideas or experiences, having
greater aesthetic sensitivity, and an active imagination. As with Extraversion, Openness
has shown mixed results in relation to factors of marital health in previous research
(Donnellan et al., 2004; Gattis et al., 2004; Watson et al., 2000; White et al., 2004).
Bouchard et al. (1999) found husband’s Openness to be significantly correlated with
wife’s dyadic adjustment, but the wife’s Openness did not significantly influence
husband’s adjustment, and proposed that Openness may be more valued by women than
men. In contrast, Bouchard and Arseneault (2005) found wife’s Openness to have a
significant positive influence on husband’s dyadic adjustment in the earlier years of the
relationship, but then reverses as the years pass, and wife’s Openness has a negative
impact on husband’s adjustment later in the relationship. Bouchard and Arseneault
(2005) suggest Openness in the earlier years, as the relationship is developing, facilitates
a deeper knowledge of each other. However, as the relationship continues, partners can
become more critical of each other and Openness could promote more negative
interactions. Due to the mixed results in previous research, it was hypothesized
Openness would not be significantly related to Intimacy. Results supported the
73
hypothesis and showed Openness (r = .069) was not significantly correlated with
Intimacy.
Conscientiousness. McCrae and Costa (2003) describe individuals scoring high
on Conscientiousness as those who would be better at controlling impulses, planning
ahead, being determined, staying organized, and be more successful in carrying out tasks.
Similar to Extraversion and Openness, Conscientiousness has also shown mixed results in
correlation to factors of marital health (Botwin et al., 1997; Bouchard et al., 1999; Gattis
et al., 2004; Rogge et al., 2006). Donnellan et al. (2004) found Conscientiousness to be
correlated with relationship satisfaction, but with only slightly significant results.
Watson et al. (2000) found Conscientiousness to be a significant predictor of satisfaction
in dating couples, but have low association with satisfaction in married couples. Due to
mixed results in previous research, it was hypothesized Conscientiousness would not be
significantly correlated with Intimacy. Results for this study show Conscientiousness (r
= .081) was not significantly correlated with Intimacy, thus the hypothesis was supported.
Partner Understanding
It was hypothesized Partner Understanding would be correlated with Intimacy.
Understanding one’s partner influences multiple factors related to intimacy including
validation (Laurenceau et al., 2005; Reis & Shaver, 1988), appropriate self-disclosure
(Chelune et al., 1984), perceiving and accepting partner’s true self, caring, and helpful
support (Reis & Patrick, 1996), comprehending the underlying meanings of partner
communication (Duck, 1994), and affirmation of partner’s self-perceptions (Reis et al.,
74
2004). However, the results of this study showed Partner Understanding was not
significantly correlated with self-reported Intimacy in the marital relationship.
It is not fully understood why Partner Understanding did not show a higher
correlation with Intimacy. Partner Understanding was not a significant predictor of
Intimacy in this study, however, Partner Understanding could be a moderating variable
which influences other factors correlated with Intimacy. As previously stated, validation
is an important factor in the process of intimacy. Derlega (1984) suggests interactions
are seen as validating when people perceive they are seen by others as they see
themselves (p. 4). The validation of self facilitates intimacy, but partner validation is not
possible without a minimal amount of understanding of the partner’s true self. Partner
Understanding could moderate the intensity of validating interactions and influence
whether the interaction is experienced as validating. In order for interactions to be
validating, care for one’s partner must also be present. Without care, Prager (1995)
points out the increased knowledge from understanding can be used to “hurt and
humiliate” the interactive partner (p. 53). Therefore, increased understanding of one’s
partner could also contribute to greater relational conflict and deeper emotional hurt. It is
possible Partner Understanding alone does not contribute to intimacy, but could moderate
other variables which do predict intimacy.
Autonomy
Autonomy is the intrinsic motivation to act in a way endorsed by the whole self,
fully chosen and determined by one’s self. Autonomy is the expression of self-
75
governance as opposed to being coerced, manipulated, or controlled by others and has
been shown to be related to factors that contribute to intimacy (Ryan & Deci, 2006).
It was hypothesized Autonomy would be a significant predictor of Intimacy.
Bivariate correlation results showed Autonomy to be significantly correlated with
Intimacy which is consistent with other findings that have shown autonomy to be related
to empathy and encouragement of partners (Weinstein et al., 2010), and increased
commitment, satisfaction, intimacy, and vitality within relationships (La Guardia &
Patrick, 2008).
Research Question Two
The second research question was, “Does self-reported Autonomy correlate with
self-reported Intimacy experienced in the marriage after controlling for Personality?” It
was hypothesized Autonomy would be a significant predictor of Intimacy after
statistically controlling for both self-reported personality traits and partner personality
traits. Hierarchal multiple regression analysis found that Autonomy was a significant
predictor of Intimacy after controlling for Personality and Partner Personality.
Personality
Except for Neuroticism, which has shown fairly consistent results, other
personality traits have shown mixed results on factors of marital health (Bouchard &
Arseneault, 2005; Holland & Roisman, 2008; O’Rourke et al., 2010; Watson et al., 2000;
White et al., 2004). Despite the inconsistencies between results for individual traits,
researchers agree that personality as a whole is an influential aspect of how one
experiences the marital relationship (Kosek, 1996; Piedmont, 1998; Robins et al., 2000;
76
Robins, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2002). Donnellan et al. (2004) state, “Personality traits shape
the psychological infrastructure of the marriage from very early on in the relationship and
this dynamic then persists as a relatively enduring aspect of the relationship” (p. 500).
Robins et al. (2002) suggest personality to be an enduring influence on relationship
quality, which contributes to the recreation of similar relationship dynamics across
multiple relationships with different partners. Due to the strong influence of personality
on relationship factors, this study statistically controlled for Personality and Partner
Personality traits when examining the relationship between Autonomy and Intimacy.
In the first step of the regression, Personality traits (Neuroticism, Extraversion,
Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness) were entered and results show they
account for approximately 14.0% of the variance in self-reported Intimacy. In other
words, a husband’s own personality predicts 14% of the variance in Intimacy he reports
experiencing in the marriage. To assess how much each trait predicts Intimacy,
Standardized Beta Coefficients were calculated and results show Agreeableness (.170) to
be the most predictive trait of Intimacy, even more so than Neuroticism (-.125).
Although Neuroticism has shown consistent results in its relationship to factors of marital
health, Agreeableness has also proven to be a significant influence (Bouchard et al.,
2005; Kosek, 1996; Lazarides et al., 2010; Watson et al., 2000; Whisman et al., 2006;
White et al., 2004).
Partner Personality
Although partner personality traits have been shown to be weaker predictors of
relationship quality than one’s own personality (Holland & Roisman, 2008; Watson et al.,
77
2000), multiple studies have shown partner traits consistently influence factors of
relationship quality (Botwin et al., 1997; Dyrenforth et al., 2010; Lazarides et al., 2010;
O’Rourke et al., 2010; Robins et al., 2000). Due to the consistent influence of partner
personality on factors of relationship quality, this study statistically controlled for partner
personality traits when examining the relationship between Autonomy and Intimacy.
In the second step of the regression, Partner Personality traits (Partner
Neuroticism, Partner Extraversion, Partner Openness, Partner Agreeableness, and Partner
Conscientiousness) were entered into the equation. Results show Partner Personality
predicts 4.9% of the variance in Intimacy after Personality is accounted for in the
regression. The findings are consistent with the previous research mentioned, which
suggests partner personality traits (4.9%) are less predictive of marital factors than self-
reported traits (14.0%). Standardized Beta Coefficients showed no single partner
personality traits were significant predictors of Intimacy.
Autonomy
Autonomy was expected to be a strong predictor of Intimacy. Past studies have
shown autonomy to be correlated with several factors of relational health (Blais et al.,
1990; Deci & Ryan, 2006; Knee et al., 2002; La Guardia & Patrick, 2008; Weinstein et
al., 2010). Autonomy, as defined by SDT, is the choice of self-governance where one
makes decisions and choices from a volitional or free-will stance, rather than from a
position of manipulation or coercion. Autonomous individuals express more accurately
their true selves and convey more genuineness and congruence between their inner selves
and how others experience them in relationship. Not only is there more acceptance of
78
one’s true self, but autonomous individuals respect and accept the true selves of others
within their interpersonal relationships.
Reis and Patrick (1996) emphasize the importance of validation as a central
component in the developmental process of intimacy and define validation as the
“perception that an interaction partner values and respects one’s inner self and point of
view” (p. 550). Autonomous individuals interact in ways that are interpreted by partners
as respectful and valuing of the partner’s inner self. The process of valuing self and the
true self of one’s partner facilitates intimacy.
Because of their enduring qualities and resistance to change, personality traits
were statistically controlled for in this study to examine the unique contribution of
Autonomy on Intimacy variance; therefore, Autonomy was entered into the third step of
the regression following Personality and Partner Personality. Consistent with other
research, this study found Autonomy to be a significant predictor of Intimacy, and
accounted for approximately 3% of the variance in Intimacy after controlling for
Personality and Partner Personality traits. To better understand the magnitude of
prediction Autonomy has on Intimacy, Standardized Beta Coefficients were calculated.
Results show Autonomy had the highest coefficient (.204) of all variables entered, even
after statistically controlling for the influence of Personality and Partner Personality on
Intimacy variance.
Research Question Three
The third research question was, “Does Partner Understanding, as determined by
COA, correlate with the partner’s Intimacy reported in the marriage after controlling for
79
Personality?” It was hypothesized Partner Understanding would be a significant
predictor of the partner’s Intimacy after statistically controlling for both self-reported
personality traits and partner personality traits. Hierarchal multiple regression analysis
found that Partner Understanding was not a significant predictor of partner Intimacy after
controlling for Personality and Partner Personality.
Personality
As described in the previous sections addressing research question two, an
individual’s personality has been shown to have significant impact on relationship factors
experienced by the individual (Kosek, 1996; Piedmont, 1998; Robins et al., 2000, 2002).
McCrae and Costa (2003) suggest personality traits are relatively stable across lifespan
development. Due to their relative stability throughout the lifespan and influence on
relationship factors, personality traits were statistically controlled when examining the
relationship between Partner Understanding and Partner Intimacy in this study.
Results of step one of the regression analysis when analyzing research question
three showed Personality to predict 5.3% of the variance in Partner Intimacy.
Examination of Standardized Beta Coefficients show Neuroticism (-.157) to be the only
trait which significantly predicted Partner Intimacy.
Partner Personality
Personality has been shown to have significant impact on relationship factors
experienced by the individual (Kosek, 1996; Piedmont, 1998; Robins et al., 2000, 2002).
Likewise, partner personality has also shown to be correlated with factors of an
individual’s relational experience, although partner personality as a whole has typically
80
shown to be a weaker predictor of relational factors than self-reported personality traits
(Dyrenforth et al., 2010; Holland & Roisman, 2008; Watson et al., 2000). Due to their
influence on relationship factors, partner personality traits were statistically controlled
when examining the relationship between Partner Understanding and Partner Intimacy in
this study.
In the second step of the regression analysis, Partner Intimacy was regressed on
Partner Personality. Results show Partner Personality predicted 13.6% of the variance in
Partner Intimacy. To determine unique prediction among the Partner Personality traits,
Standardized Beta Coefficients were examined. Results show Neuroticism (-.192) and
Agreeableness (.179) were significant predictors of Partner Intimacy, which is consistent
with previous research reporting the influence of Neuroticism and Agreeableness on
factors of marital health (O’Rourke et al., 2010; Watson et al., 2000; Whisman et al.,
2006; White et al., 2004).
It is interesting to note the similarities between the regression results for research
question two and research question three. For question two regression, the dependent
variable was Intimacy. For question three regression, the dependent variable was Partner
Intimacy. In both regression equations, self-reported personality traits and partner self-
reported personality traits were statistically controlled for. The similarities between the
results of these two regression equations can be viewed in Table 8. The percent change
in Intimacy variance predicted by Personality is 14.0. A similar result (13.6) was
obtained when calculating the percent change in Partner Intimacy predicted by Partner
Personality. This similarity is because assessing the relationship between Partner
81
Intimacy and Partner Personality is essentially the same as assessing the relationship
between Intimacy and Personality. Both are assessing the change in self-reported
intimacy as predicted by self-reported personality. A similar result can be seen when
comparing the percent change in Intimacy as predicted by Partner Personality (4.9),
compared to the percent change in Partner Intimacy as predicted by Personality (5.3).
Both are assessing how well one’s partner’s personality predicts self-reported intimacy.
82
Table 8
Regression of Personality and Partner Personality on Intimacy and Partner Intimacy
Step and predictor variable Intimacy % Change Partner Intimacy % Change
Step 1 Personality 14.0 5.3
Step 2 Partner Personality 4.9 13.6
83
Partner Understanding
Understanding one’s partner has been shown to be correlated with multiple
factors of relational health (Chelune et al., 1984; Duck, 1994; Laurenceau et al., 2005;
Reis & Patrick, 1996; Reis & Shaver, 1988). Due to its influence on marital health, it
was hypothesized Partner Understanding would be a significant predictor of Partner
Intimacy.
Partner Understanding was entered as the third step in the multiple regression
analysis of research question three. Surprisingly, results of the analysis showed that
Partner Understanding (0.0%) was not a significant predictor of the variance in Partner
Intimacy after statistically controlling for Personality and Partner Personality.
Examination of Standardized Beta Coefficients also show Partner Understanding was not
a significant predictor of Partner Intimacy.
Clarification for why Partner Understanding was not a significant predictor of
Intimacy in this study might be explained by the function of understanding in the
interactional process of intimacy. Understanding in close relationships is the belief that
one’s partner has an accurate impression of one’s perceived core self, and the needs,
goals, beliefs, and life circumstances are correctly perceived by one’s partner (Reis &
Patrick, 1996). Intimacy is facilitated by communicative interactions where partners
understand each other’s true self as understood and defined by self-perception. However,
Reis et al. (2004) caution that more than understanding is needed to facilitate positive
interactions that contribute to intimacy and emphasize the importance of a sense of
supportiveness, caring, and valuation between interaction partners. As previously
84
mentioned, Partner Understanding could be a moderating variable which influences other
factors correlated with Intimacy. Self-disclosure is a key component of communication
in close relationships. Laurenceau et al. (2005) suggest partner responsiveness
characterized by understanding, accepting, validating, and caring contribute to the
interpersonal process of intimacy above and beyond self-disclosure. Reis and Patrick
(1996) describe validation as the “central element of the intimacy process,” and define
validation as the “perception that an interaction partner values and respects one’s inner
self and point of view” (p. 550). Therefore, validation requires both value of one’s
partner and partner understanding. Partner Understanding is also an important part of
emotional support in close relationships. Nonjudgmental emotional support that conveys
understanding is a basic foundation in martial intimacy (Kersten & Himle, 1991). Since
understanding one’s partner is an important characteristic of key factors in relational
health, it is suggested Partner Understanding could be a moderating variable in some
factors of Intimacy as opposed to a primary independent variable as it was assessed in
this study.
Implications for Practice
This study provides implications for counseling practice and marital therapy.
First, implications related to personality trait assessment could inform practice. Findings
in this study are consistent with previous studies showing Neuroticism and Agreeableness
to be the primary traits which influence relational factors of marital health. Personality
assessment and interpretation conducted by counselors could provide clients insight into
personality traits most influential in their interpersonal relationships. Assessment and
85
interpretation by marital therapists could also provide couples increased insight into
partner personality traits important to relational factors. Since personality traits are
considered predominantly stable over the adult lifespan (McCrae & Costa, 2003),
attempts to change traits should not be the focus of counseling. However, counsel on
how to better understand and interact within the context of a relational partner’s
individual traits could help facilitate relational intimacy. Additionally, increased
awareness of one’s own traits and how to express those traits in relationally healthy
choices could facilitate intimacy within the client’s marital relationship.
Second, findings from this study regarding autonomy provide implications for
practitioners. Results show Autonomy to be a significant predictor of Intimacy.
Autonomous motivation and behavior can be improved over time as an individual
determines to make decisions described as more autonomous. Counselors could assess
and promote autonomy within their clients. Counselors who identify low levels of
autonomous beliefs and behaviors within their clients could help them adjust toward a
more autonomous expression of life choices, and help clients support autonomous
behavior in their spouses. Autonomous individuals express more accurately their true
selves. Counselors could encourage clients to portray an accurate presentation of one’s
true self within the context of a marital relationship, which would provide the opportunity
for increased intimacy within the marriage.
Third, findings from this study regarding understanding one’s partner could
provide implications for practitioners. Results showed Partner Understanding does not
predict Partner Intimacy in marital relationships. The literature suggests partner
86
understanding is an important contributor to factors of relational health. However, it is
important for counselors to note that partner understanding alone is not a significant
factor in relational intimacy. Increased understanding can also be utilized by relational
partners to inflict greater emotional pain. As counselors work with couples, relational
factors other than understanding must be emphasized. Other factors such as improved
communication skills, emotional support, care, empathy, and validation should be the
primary factors of focus, and partner understanding should be viewed as a supportive
aspect of these factors.
Recommendations and Implications for Research
Considering the design and results of this study, there are several
recommendations for future research. This study recruited participants from evangelical
Christian Midwestern churches, and demographic results show ethnicity of the participant
sample to be overwhelmingly Caucasian (96.2%). Future studies could utilize a more
ethnically and religiously diverse participant sample. Although it is not known whether
participants were receiving outpatient treatment, it is presumed most participants were
not receiving treatment at the time of data collection. Future studies could compare both
non-clinical participants and those receiving marital therapy services. This study used a
cross-sectional correlational design. A longitudinal study may provide more insight into
how marital intimacy develops over time, or reveal changes in factors that are influential
to the process of marital intimacy through various life experiences.
The variables included and excluded from this study offer another area of
recommendation for future research. The literature supports partner understanding as an
87
influential factor within the process of marital intimacy. However, the results of this
study show Partner Understanding was not a significant predictor of Partner Intimacy. It
is suggested that future research examine the moderating qualities of Partner
Understanding on other factors of marital health including self-disclosure, validation,
care, empathy, and emotional support. Future research could also assess the unique
contributions to intimacy by other factors closely related to autonomy such as validation,
responsiveness, and care.
Additionally, assessment choices in this study pose additional recommendations
for future research. Personality, Partner Personality, and Partner Understanding through
COA analysis all utilized the short version of the NEO personality inventory (NEO-FFI-
3). The long version of the NEO (NEO-PI-3) would collect data on the individual facets
of the five personality domains which could provide additional insight on the facet level
of the trait factors correlated with intimacy. Finally, all data for this study were collected
through self-report and spouse rater report instruments. Future research could employ
other forms of assessment including trained observers or rater reports from sources in
addition to spouse rater reports.
Limitations of the Study
There were multiple limitations in this study. The participants were primarily
evangelical Christian Caucasians living in the Midwestern United States. Results may
not be applicable to individuals from other religious and ethnic/cultural backgrounds.
The sample size (212) was adequate, but a larger sample size would provide more
statistical power. Participants for this study were married couples, so results may not
88
apply to other forms of intimate relationships (e.g. family, friendships). It is presumed
most participants were not receiving marital therapy at the time of data collection, so
results may not be applicable to those receiving marital therapy services or couples
experiencing high levels of relational dysfunction.
There were limitations related to the instruments used in this study. Data for all
variables except Partner Understanding were collected using self-report instruments,
which are limited by participant bias. The Self-Determination Scale and Intimate Safety
Questionnaire show adequate reliability and validity performance, but previous use of
these instruments has been limited to a few studies. The NEO personality inventories
were chosen for this study to assess the five domains of personality and have a robust
history of use for personality trait assessment. However, this study utilized the NEO-
FFI-3 to determine Partner Understanding through COA, and the NEO instruments have
had limited use for this purpose.
Summary
This study extended current research on the relationship between Personality,
Partner Personality, Autonomy, Partner Understanding, Intimacy, and Partner Intimacy in
marital relationships. In the participant sample, Neuroticism, Extraversion, and
Agreeableness were significantly correlated with Intimacy. Neuroticism and
Agreeableness emerged as the strongest traits related to Intimacy, which is consistent
with previous personality trait research. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis
showed Autonomy to be a significant predictor of Intimacy experienced in the marital
relationship after statistically controlling for Personality and Partner Personality traits. A
89
second hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted to determine the
relationship between Partner Understanding and Partner Intimacy after statistically
controlling for Personality and Partner Personality. Results show Partner Understanding
was not a significant predictor of Partner Intimacy.
The findings regarding personality traits support the importance for therapy
practitioners to consider the influence personality can have on relationship functioning.
Although personality traits are considered enduring and resistant to change, practitioners
can help clients increase awareness of their own and their partners’ personalities to
improve intrapersonal functioning and relational health. The findings also emphasize the
importance of autonomous motivation to relational health, which corresponds to previous
research showing autonomy supports relationship vitality, satisfaction, and intimacy
(Blais et al., 1990; La Guardia & Patrick, 2008). Practitioners should emphasize the
importance of autonomy and how it both facilitates the expression of one’s true self, and
promotes partner expression of true self in relationship functioning. Individuals
operating from a less autonomous perspective are more susceptible to manipulation and
coercion from others or environmental sources, which hinders the interactional process of
intimacy. Unexpectedly, Partner Understanding did not significantly predict Partner
Intimacy in the participant sample. Further research will be needed to determine the
relationship Partner Understanding has with Partner Intimacy. The prevalence of
understanding in the literature suggests understanding one’s partner would influence the
intimacy experienced by one’s partner. It is possible that understanding one’s partner
goes beyond the ability to identify personality traits and extends to other factors of the
90
individual (e.g. emotional intelligence, cognitions, core beliefs), which were not assessed
in this study. Future research could examine other aspects of knowing and becoming
known within interpersonal relationships. Additionally, future research could examine if
Partner Understanding plays a moderating role in the relationship between other factors
of relational health and the level of intimacy experienced by one’s partner. For
practitioners, the implications are important. Understanding a partner’s personality traits
alone does not predict the level of intimacy experienced by the partner. Other relational
factors must be considered, which emphasizes the importance for practitioners to look for
other factors influencing the interpersonal process of intimacy in marital relationships.
Partner Understanding through COA should not be the sole treatment modality without
further exploration of other factors influencing the marital relationship.
In conclusion, two important aspects of autonomous motivation are suggested for
couples. First, one’s level of autonomy within intrapersonal decision making can greatly
influence marital relationship health. Secondly, respecting and promoting the autonomy
of one’s partner can facilitate intimacy within the marriage. It is also suggested that
couples recognize the importance of self-care and respect for one’s own personality
uniqueness and perspectives, as well as the expression of care and respect of the unique
personality differences of his or her partner. Suggestions for practitioners include
helping clients work within their own and their partner’s unique personality while
supporting autonomy in self and partner decisions.
91
REFERENCES
Acitelli, L. K., & Duck, S. W. (1987). Intimacy as the proverbial elephant. In D. Perlman & S. W. Duck (Eds.). Intimate relationships: Development, dynamics, and deterioration (pp. 297-308). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bagarozzi, D. A. (2001). Enhancing intimacy in marriage: A clinician’s guide. New York: Brunner-Routledge.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 487-529. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
Blais, M. R., Sabourin, S., Boucher, C., & Vallerand, R. (1990). Toward a motivational model of couple happiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59,
1021–1031. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.1021
Botwin, M. D., Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Personality and mate preferences: Five Factors in mate selection and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality, 65(1), 107-136. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00531.x
Bouchard, G., & Arseneault, J. (2005). Length of union as a moderator of the relationship between personality and dyadic adjustment. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(8), 1407-1417. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2005.05.005
Bouchard, G., Lussier, Y., & Sabourin, S. (1999). Personality and marital adjustment: Utility of the Five-Factor Model of personality. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61(3), 651-660. doi: 10.2307/353567
Burbee, R. K., Sparks, B. K. Paul, R. S., & Arnzen, C. (2011). Integrative marital intensive therapy: A strategy for marriages in severe distress. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 30(1), 37-50. Retrieved from http://psycnet. apa.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu
Carr, D., & Springer, K. W. (2010). Advances in family and health research in the 21st century. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 743-761. doi: 10.1111/j.1741- 3737.2010.00728.x
Chelune, G. J., Robison, J. T., & Kommor, M. J. (1984). A cognitive interactional model of intimate relationships. In V. J. Derlega (Ed.), Communication, intimacy, and close relationships (pp. 11-40). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Clark, M. S., & Reis, H. T. (1988). Interpersonal processes in close relationships. Annual
92
Review of Psychology, 39, 609-672. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.39.020188.003141
Collins, N. L., & Miller, C. L. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 457-475. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.457
Cordova, J. V. (2002). Behavior analysis and the scientific study of couples. Behavior Analyst Today, 3, 412-420. Retrieved from http://www.clarku.edu/ research/ coupleslab/publications.htm
Cordova, J. V., Gee, C. B., & Warren, L. Z. (2005). Emotional skillfulness in marriage: Intimacy as a mediator of the relationship between emotional skillfulness and marital satisfaction. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24(2), 218-235. doi: 10.1521/ jscp.24.2.218.62270
Cordova, J. V., & Scott, R. L. (2001). Intimacy: A behavioral interpretation. The Behavioral Analyst, 24(1), 75-86. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pmc/articles/PMC2731357/pdf/behavan00009-0077.pdf
Creamer, M., & Campbell, I. M. (1988). The role of interpersonal perception in dyadic adjustment. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44(3), 424-430. doi: 10.1002/1097- 4679(198805)44:3<424::AID-JCLP2270440318>3.0.CO;2-N
Cross, S. E., & Gore, J. S. (2004). The relational self-construal and closeness. In D. J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy. (pp. 229-245).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268. doi: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. New York: University of Rochester Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology, 49(1), 14-23. doi: 10.1037/0708-5591.49.1.14
DeHart, T., Pelham, B., & Murray, S. (2004). Implicit dependency regulation: Self- esteem, relationship closeness, and implicit evaluations of close others. Social Cognition, 22(1), 126-146. doi: 10.1521/soco.22.1.126.30986 Derlega, V. J. (1984). Self-disclosure and intimate relationships. In V. J. Derlega (Ed.), Communication, intimacy, and close relationships (pp. 1-9). Orlando, FL:
93
Academic Press. Donnellan, M. B., Conger, R. D., & Bryant, C. M. (2004). The Big Five and enduring marriages. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 481-504. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp. 2004.01.001
Dorian, M., & Cordova, J. V. (2004). Coding intimacy in couples’ interactions. In P. K. Kerig and D. H. Baucom (Eds.), Couple observational coding systems (pp. 243- 256). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Duck, S. (1994). Meaningful relationships: Talking, sense, and relating. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Dudley, M. G., & Kosinski, F. A. (1990). Religiosity and marital satisfaction: A research note. Review of Religious Research, 32(1), 78-87. Retrieved from web. ebscohost.com
Dyrenforth, P. S., Kashy, D. A., Donnellan, M. B., & Lucas, R. E. (2010). Predicting relationship and life satisfaction from personality in nationally representative samples from three countries: The relative importance of actor, partner, and similarity effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(4), 690-702. doi: 10.1037/a0020385
Eidelson, R. J. (1983). Affiliation and independence issues in marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45(3), 683-688. doi: 10.2307/351674
Engel, G., Olson, K. R., & Patrick, C. (2002). The personality of love: Fundamental motives and traits related to components of love. Personality and Individual Differences, 32(5), 839-853. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00090-3
Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. (1999). Conflict in marriage: Implications for working with couples. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1), 47-77. doi: 10.1146/ annurev.psych.50.1.47
Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. (2010). Marriage in the new millennium: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 630-649. doi: 10.1111/j.1741- 3737.2010.00722.x
Fincham, F. D., Stanley, S. M., & Beach, S. R. H. (2007). Transformative processes in marriage: An analysis of emerging trends. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(2), 275-292. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00362.x
Gaia, A. C. (2002). Understanding emotional intimacy: A review of conceptualization,
94
assessment and the role of gender. International Social Science Review, 77(3), 151-170. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu
Gattis, K. S., Berns, S., Simpson, L. E., & Christensen, A. (2004). Birds of a feather or strange birds? Ties among personality dimensions, similarity, and marital quality. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(4), 564-574. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.18.4.564
Gardner, J., & Oswald, A. (2004). How is mortality affected by money, marriage, and stress? Journal of Health Economics, 23, 1181-1207. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.
2004.03.002
Hatfield, E. (1984). The dangers of intimacy. In V. J. Derlega (Ed.), Communication, intimacy, and close relationships (pp. 207-220). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1990). Love and work: An attachment-theoretical
perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(2), 270-280. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.2.270.
Heaton, T. B., & Goodman, K. L. (1985). Religion and family formation. Review of Religious Research, 26(4), 343-359. Retrieved from web.ebscohost.com
Holland, A. S., & Roisman, G. I. (2008). Big Five personality traits and relationship quality: Self-reported, observational, and physiological evidence. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(5), 811-829. doi: 10.1177/ 0265407508096697
Holmes, J. G., & Murray, S. L. (2007). Felt security as a normative resource: Evidence for an elemental risk regulation system. Psychological Inquiry, 18(3), 163-167.
Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&uid=2007- 13150-003
Hook, M. K., Gerstein, L. H., Detterich, L., & Gridley, B. (2003). How close are we? Measuring intimacy and examining gender differences. Journal of Counseling & Development, 81(4), 462-472. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.
ezproxy.liberty.edu
Horney, K. (1937). The neurotic personality of our time. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Horney, K. (1950). Neurosis and human growth: The struggle toward self-realization.
New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
95
Hughes, M. E., & Waite, L. J. (2009). Marital biography and health at mid-life. Journal of Health & Social Behavior, 50(3), 344-358. doi: 10.1177/002214650905000307
Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Knack, J. M., & Rex-Lear, M. (2009). Personality and social relations. In P. J. Corr & G. Matthews (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personality psychology (pp. 506-540). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, D. R., & Wu, J. (2002). An empirical test of crisis, social selection, and role explanations of the relationship between marital disruption and psychological distress: A pooled time-series analysis of four-wave panel data. Journal of Marriage & Family, 64(1), 211-224. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00211.x
Karney, B. R. (2007). Not shifting but broadening marital research: Comments on Finchham, Stanley, and Beach. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(2), 310-314.
doi: 10.111/j.1741-3737.2007.00366.x
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118(1), 3-34. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.118.1.3
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1997). Neuroticism, marital interaction, and the trajectory of marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(5), 1075-1092. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.72.5.1075
Kazdin, A. E. (2003). Research design in clinical psychology (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Keeley, M. P., & Hart, A. J. (1994). Nonverbal behavior in dyadic interactions. In S.
Duck (Ed.), Dynamics of Relationships. (pp. 135-162). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Keith, T. Z. (2006), Multiple regression and beyond. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Kersten, K. K., & Himle, D. P. (1991). Marital intimacy: A model for clinical assessment and intervention. In B. J. Brothers (Ed.), Intimate autonomy: Autonomous intimacy (pp. 103-121). New York: The Haworth Press. Knee C. R., Lonsbary, C., Canevello, A., & Patrick, H. (2005). Self-determination and
conflict in romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 997-1009. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.997
Knee, R. C., Patrick, H., Vietor, N. A., Nanayakkara, A., & Neighbors, C. (2002). Self-determination as growth motivation in romantic relationships. Personality
96
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(5), 609-619. doi: 10.1177/0146167202288005
Kosek, R. B. (1996). The quest for a perfect spouse: Spousal ratings and marital satisfaction. Psychological Reports, 79(3), 731-735. doi: 10.2466/pr0. 1996.79.3.731
La Guardia, J. G., & Patrick, H. (2008). Self-determination theory as a fundamental theory of close relationships. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 201-209. doi: 10.1037/a0012760
La Guardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Within-person variation in security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(3), 367-384. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.79.3.367
Lambert, N. M., Fincham, F. D., Gwinn, A. M., & Ajayi, C. A. (2011). Positive relationship science: A new frontier for positive psychology? In K. M. Sheldon,
T. B. Kashdan, & M. F. Steger (Eds.), Designing positive psychology: Taking stock and moving forward (pp. 280-292). NY: Oxford University Press.
Laurenceau, J., Barrett, L. F., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal process: The importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 74(5), 1238-1251. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1238
Laurenceau, J., Barrett, L. F., & Rovine, M. J. (2005). The interpersonal process model of intimacy in marriage: A daily-diary and multilevel modeling approach. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(2), 314-323. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.19.2.314
Laurenceau, J., Rivera, L. M., Schaffer, A. R., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (2004). Intimacy as an interpersonal process: Current status and future directions. In D. J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy. (pp. 61-78). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lazarides, A., Belanger, C., & Sabourin, S. (2010). Personality as a moderator of the relationship between communication and couple stability. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 6(2), 11-31. doi: 10.1037/e676482011-004
Licht, M. H. (1995). Multiple regression and correlation. In L. G. Grimm & P. R. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding multivariate statistics. (pp. 19-64). Washington DC, US: American Psychological Association.
Lippert, T., & Prager, K. J. (2001). Daily experiences of intimacy: A study of couples.
97
Personal Relationships, 8(3), 283-298. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2001.tb00041.x Lorenz, F. O., Wickrama, K. A. S., Conger, R. D., & Elder, G. H. (2006). The short-term and decade-long effects of divorce on women’s midlife health. Journal of Health & Social Behavior, 47(2), 111-125. doi: 10.1177/002214650604700202
Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. (3rd ed.) New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Matthews, C., & Clark, R. D. (1982). Marital satisfaction: A validation approach. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 3(3), 169-186. doi: 10.1207/
s15324834basp0303_2
McCrae, R. R. (2008). A note on some measures of profile agreement. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90(2), 105-109. doi: 10.1080/00223890701845104
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2003). Personality in adulthood: A five-factor theory perspective. (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2010). NEO Inventories professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Mirgain, S. A., & Cordova, J. V. (2007). Emotion skills and marital health: The association between observed and self-reported emotion skills, intimacy, and marital satisfaction. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26(9), 983-1009. doi: 10.1521/jscp.2007.26.9.983
Mitchell, A. E., Castellani, A. M., Herrington, R. L., Joseph, J. I., Doss, B. D., & Snyder, D. K. (2008). Predictors of intimacy in couples’ discussions of relationship injuries: An observational study. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(1), 21-29.
doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.22.1.21
Monsour, M. (1994). Similarities and dissimilarities in personal relationships: Constructing meaning and building intimacy through communication. In S. Duck (Ed.), Dynamics of Relationships. (pp. 112-134). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Morry, M. M. (2005). Allocentrism and friendship satisfaction: The mediating roles of disclosure and closeness. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 37(3),
211-222. doi: 10.1037/h0087258
Morton, T. L. (1978). Intimacy and reciprocity of exchange: A comparison of spouses and strangers. Journal of Personality an Social Psychology, 36(1), 72-81. doi:
98
10.1037/0022-3514.36.1.72
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., Bellavia, G., Griffin, D. W., & Dolderman, D. (2002). Kindred spirits? The benefits of egocentrism in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(4), 563-581. doi: 10.1037//0022- 3514.82.4.563
Murstein, B. I., & Beck, G. D. (1972). Person perception, marriage adjustment, and social desirability. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 39(3), 396-403. doi: 10.1037/h0033960
Newmark, C. S., Woody, G., & Ziff, D. (1977). Understanding and similarity in relation to marital satisfaction. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33(1), 83-86. doi: 10.1002/ 1097-4679(197701)33:1<83::AID-JCLP2270330>3.0.CO;2-W Noller, P., & Feeney, J. A. (2002). Introduction in P. Noller & J. A. Feeney (Eds.), Understanding marriage: Developments in the study of couple interaction
(pp. 1-5). New York: Cambridge University Press.
O’Rourke, N., Neufeld, E., Claxton, A., & Smith, J. Z. (2010). Knowing me – knowing you: Reported personality and trait discrepancies as predictors of marital idealization between long-wed spouses. Psychology and Aging, 25(2), 412-421. doi: 10.1037/a0017873
Patrick, S., & Beckenbach, J. (2009). Male perceptions of intimacy: A qualitative study. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 17(1), 47-56. doi: 10.3149/jms.1701.47
Patrick, H., Knee, C. R., Canevello, A., & Lonsbary, C. (2007). The role of need fulfillment in relationship functioning and well-being: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(3), 434-457. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.434
Patterson, M. L. (1984). Intimacy, social control, and noverbal involvement: A functional approach in V. J. Derlega (Ed.), Communication, Intimacy, and Close Relationships (pp. 105-132). Orlando, FL: Academic Press Inc. Piedmont, R. L. (1998). The revised NEO Personality Inventory: Clinical and research applications. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Piedmont, R. L., & Rodgerson, T. E. (2013). Crossover analysis: Using the Five-Factor Model and revised NEO personality inventory to assess couples. In T. A. Widiger & P. T. Costa (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five-factor model of
99
personality (3rd ed.), (pp. 375-394). Washington DC, US: American Psychological Association.
Pollmann, M., & Finkenauer, C. (2009). Investigating the role of two types of understanding in relationship well-being: Understanding is more important than knowledge. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(11), 1512-1527. doi: 10.1177/0146167209342754 Prager, K. J. (1995). The psychology of intimacy. New York: The Guildford Press.
Prager, K. J, & Roberts, L. J. (2004). Deep intimate connection: Self and intimacy in couple relationships. In D. J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness
and intimacy. (pp. 43-60). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ptacek, J. T., & Dodge, K. L. (1995). Coping strategies and relationship satisfaction in couples. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(1), 76-84. doi: 10.1177/ 0146167295211008
Rankin-Esquer, L. A., Burnett, C. K., Baucom, D. H., & Epstein, N. (1997). Autonomy and relatedness in marital functioning. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,
23(2), 175-189. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.1997.tb00242.x
Reis, H. T. (1990). The role of intimacy in interpersonal relations. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9(1), 15-30. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org.ezproxy. liberty.edu:2048/index.cfm?fa=search.searchResults
Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In D. J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy. (pp. 201-225). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Reis, H. T., & Patrick, B. C. (1996). Attachment and intimacy: Component processes. In E. T. Higgins & A. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 367-389). Chichester, England: Wiley & Sons.
Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 367-389). Chichester, England: Wiley & Sons. Roberts, L. J., & Greenberg, D. R. (2002). Observational “windows” to intimacy processes in marriage. In P. Noller & J. A. Feeney (Eds.), Understanding marriage: Developments in the study of couple interaction (pp. 118-149). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
100
Roberts, B. W., & Mroczek, D. (2008). Personality trait change in adulthood. Current Directions In Psychological Science, 17(1), 31-35. doi: 10.1111/j.1467- 8721.2008.00543.x
Robins, R. W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2000). Two personalities, one relationship: Both partners’ personality traits shape the quality of their relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(2), 251-259. doi: 10.1037//0022- 3514.79.2.251
Robins, R. W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2002). It’s not just who you’re with, it’s who you are: Personality and relationship experiences across multiple relationships. Journal of Personality, 70(6), 925-964. doi: 10.1111/1467-6494.05028
Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Rogers, C. R. (1972). Becoming partners: Marriage and its alternatives. New York: Delacorte.
Rogge, R. D., Bradbury, T. N., Hahlweg, K., Engl, J., & Thurmaier, F. (2006). Predicting marital distress and dissolution: Refining the Two-Factor hypothesis. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(1), 156-159. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.20.1.156
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000b). The darker and brighter sides of human existence: Basic psychological needs as a unifying concept. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 319-338. doi: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_03
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 1-33). Rochester, NY: The University of
Rochester Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Self-Regulation and the problem of human autonomy: Does psychology need choice, self-determination, and will? Journal of Personality, 74(6), 1557-1585. doi: 0.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00420.x Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2008). Self-determination theory and the role of basic psychological needs in personality and organization of behavior. In O. P John, R. W. Robins & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research
101
(pp. 654-678). New York: Guilford Press.
Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (2000). Interpersonal flourishing: A positive health agenda for the new millennium. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(1), 30-44.
doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0401_4
Sanderson, C. A., & Cantor, N. (2001). The association of intimacy goals and marital satisfaction: A test of four meditational hypotheses. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(12), 1567-1577. doi: 0.1177/01461672012712001
Schimel, J., Arndt, J., Pyszczynski, T., & Greenberg, J. (2001). Being accepted for who we are: Evidence that social validation of the intrinsic self reduces general
defensiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(1), 35-52. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.80.1.35
Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., & Reis, H. T. (1996). What makes for a good day? Competence and autonomy in the day and in the person. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1270–1279. doi: 10.1177/
01461672962212007
Shiota, M. N., & Levenson, R. W. (2007). Birds of a feather don’t always fly farthest: Similarity in Big Five personality predicts more negative marital satisfaction trajectories in long-term marriages. Psychology and Aging, 22(4), 666-675. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.22.4.666
Shrum, W. (1980). Religion and marital instability: Change in the 1970s. Review of Religious Research, 21(2), 135-147. Retrieved from web.ebscohost.com
Skinner, E., & Edge, K. (2002). Self-determination, coping and development. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research
(pp. 297-337). Rochester, NY: The University of Rochester Press.
Snyder, D. K. (1979). Multidimensional assessment of marital satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41(4), 813-823. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/351481.
Spencer, T. (1994). Transforming relationships through ordinary talk. In S. Duck (Ed.), Dynamics of relationships (pp. 58-85). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
Stamp, G. H., & Banski, M. A. (1992). The communicative management of constrained autonomy during the transition to parenthood. Western Journal of Communication, 56(3), 281-300. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov
Stern, B. L. (1999). Fear of intimacy, adult attachment theory, and the Five-Factor model
102
of personality: A test of empirical convergence and incremental validity. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 60(11-B), 5793.
Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Swan, W. B., De La Ronde, C., & Hixon, G. (1994). Authenticity and positivity strivings in marriage and courtship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5),
857-869. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.66.5.857.
Van den Broucke, S., Vertommen, H., & Vandereycken, W. (1995). Construction and validation of a marital intimacy questionnaire. Journal of Applied Family Studies, 44(3), 285-290. doi: 10.2307/585527
Waite, L. J., & Gallagher, M. (2000). The case for marriage. New York: Broadway Books.
Waring, E. M., & Chelune, G. J. (1983). Marital intimacy and self-disclosure. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 39(2), 183-190. doi: 10.1002/10974679(198303) 39:2<183::AID-JCLP2270390206>3.0.CO;2-L Waring, E. M., Schaefer, B., & Fry, R. (1994). The influence of therapeutic self- disclosure on perceived marital intimacy. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 20(2), 135-146. doi: 10.1080/00926239408403424 Watson, D., Hubbard, B., & Wiese, D. (2000). General traits of personality and affectivity as predictors of satisfaction in intimate relationships: Evidence from self and partner-ratings. Journal of Personality, 68(3), 413-449. doi: 10.1111/1467-6494.00102
Weinstein, N., Hodgins, H. S., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). Autonomy and control in dyads: Effects on interaction quality and joint creative performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(12), 1603-1617. doi: 10.1177/0146167210386385
Weiss, R. L., & Cerreto, M. C. (1980). The Marital Status Inventory: Development of a measure of dissolution potential. American Journal of Family Therapy, 8(2), 80- 85. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01926188008250358.
Whisman, M. A., Uebelacker, L. A., Tolejko, N., Chatav, Y., & McKelvie, M. (2006). Marital discord and well-being in older adults: Is the association confounded by personality? Psychology and Aging, 21(3), 626-631. doi: 10.1037/0882- 7974.21.3.626
103
White, J. K., Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (2004). Big Five personality variables and relationship constructs. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1519-1530. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2004.02.019
Williams, K., & Umberson, D. (2004). Marital status, marital transitions, and health: A gendered life course perspective. Journal of Health & Social Behavior, 45(1), 81- 98. doi: 10.1177/002214650404500106
Wilson, J., & Musick, M. (1996). Religion and marital dependency. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 35(1), 30-40. doi: 10.2307/1386393
Wright, D. W., Simmons, L. A., & Campbell, K. (2007). Does a marriage ideal exist? Using Q-sort methodology to compare young adults’ and professional educators’ views on healthy marriages. Contemporary Family Therapy, 29(4), 223-236.
doi: 10.1007/s10591-007-9044-0
Young, M. A. (2004). Healthy relationships: Where’s the research? The Family Journal, 12(2), 159-162. doi:10.1177/1066480703262090
104
Appendix A: Demographic Information Form
Participant ID # _______________ Please fill in the circle next to the appropriate responses to the questions below. 1. Gender:
O Female O Male
2. Age:
O Less than 24 O 25-29 O 30-39 O 40-49 O50-59
O 60-69 O 70+
3. Ethnic/racial group under which you would classify yourself: O African American
O Asian American O Hispanic O American Indian
O Caucasian O Other
4. Highest level of education completed: O Elementary school
O Middle school O High school O 2-year college O 4-year college O Graduate school
5. Number of times married including current marriage: O 1 O 2 O 3 O 4+
105
6. Length of current marriage in years: O less than 2 years O 2-5 O 6-10 O 11-19 O 20-29 O 30-39 O 40+
106
Appendix B: Letter to Church Leader
Dear Church Leader, My name is Tim Williams and I am requesting your assistance as I work to complete a PhD in Counseling from Liberty University. I am seeking volunteers to participate in my dissertation research study which will assess relational intimacy in married couples. Participants will complete a set of written questionnaires designed to statistically evaluate the relationship between individual traits, level of partner understanding, and the amount of relational intimacy experienced in the marriage. It is estimated it will take an average of 40 minutes for each participant to complete the questionnaires. If you decide to assist me with the study you will agree to complete the following steps:
1. Read and/or make available the Research Study Announcement to potential volunteers at your church.
2. Collect the names and contact information of each couple who volunteers to participate in the study using the Name/Contact Information form provided by the researcher, and store the form in a safe and secure location.
3. Distribute questionnaire packets to any couples who volunteer to participate in the study. (Participants will return the questionnaire packets to the researcher using a self-addressed postage paid envelope provided by the researcher.)
4. Read and/or make available the overall results of the research study to participants.
5. Destroy the Name/Contact Information form six months after the study is completed.
If you agree to the above steps I will complete the following:
1. Provide you a written Research Study Announcement. 2. Provide you a Name/Contact Information form. 3. Provide you questionnaire packets. 4. Provide you a written report of the research study overall results after my
dissertation is completed.
107
5. Provide participants their individual study results if any participants request them by contacting the researcher through the professional counseling agency.
Sincerely, Tim Williams
108
Appendix C: Research Study Announcement
You are invited to be in a research study of relational intimacy in marriages. This study is being conducted by Timothy Williams, a doctoral student (under the direction of Dr. David Jenkins) in the Center for Counseling and Family Studies at Liberty University. Participation in this study is voluntary. Participation will be limited to married couples who volunteer to participate. Individuals should not participate if their spouse is not also willing to volunteer to participate. Your decision whether or not to participate will not affect your current or future relations with Liberty University or your church. If you decide to participate, you are free to not answer any question or to withdraw at any time without affecting your relationships with Liberty University or church. There will be no compensation provided to volunteers who participate in the study. Participants will complete a packet of questionnaires estimated to take approximately 40 minutes, and mail the questionnaire packet to the researcher in the self-addressed postage paid envelope provided by the researcher. No personal identifiable information will be collected in the questionnaire packet. You will be asked to provide your name and contact information to your church leader to receive a questionnaire packet. The results of this study will be published in the researcher’s dissertation and may be released in future publications. However, no information will be published that will make it possible to identify any individual participant. Overall study results will be reported when the study is completed. Participants may contact the researcher for individual study results using the provided contact information after the study is completed. To participate in the study, obtain a questionnaire packet from your church leader listed below. After you and your spouse complete the questionnaires, mail them to the researcher using the provided self-addressed postage paid envelope. Researcher: Timothy Williams (Contact information deleted) Church leader:
109
Appendix D: Name/Contact Information Form
Packet # Name Contact Information
110
Appendix E: Consent Form
The Relationship Between Individual Traits, Understanding Partner Self-Perception, and Intimacy in a Sample of Heterosexual Marital Relationships
Timothy Williams Liberty University
Center for Counseling and Family Studies You are invited to be in a research study of relational intimacy in marriages. You were selected as a possible participant because of your marital status and attendance at this church. I ask that you read this form and ask any questions you may have before agreeing to be in the study. This study is being conducted by Timothy Williams, a doctoral student (under the direction of Dr. David Jenkins) in the Center for Counseling and Family Studies. Background Information: The purpose of this study is to explore the effect of individual characteristics (e.g., personality traits, autonomy) and the understanding of partner traits on relational intimacy experienced in the marital relationship. A large amount of research exists examining the relationship between personality traits and marital outcomes such as marital satisfaction and adjustment. However, very little research exists which examines personality traits and intimacy, and no research has been found to examine the effect of both personality traits and understanding of partner traits on intimacy in marriages. Your voluntary participation will provide important data and could increase understanding of how intimacy develops or is hindered in marriage relationships. Procedures: If you agree to be in this study, I would ask you to do the following things: You will complete the questionnaires contained in this packet which includes a demographic form, the Self-Determination Scale (SDS), NEO-FFI-3 Form S, NEO-FFI-3 Form R, and Intimate Safety Questionnaire (ISQ). It is estimated it will take approximately 40 minutes to complete all the questionnaires in the packet. Upon completion both spouses should place their questionnaires in the self-addressed stamped envelope which contained the questionnaires and mail the packet back to the researcher. A mailing address and return address will be provided on the return envelope, do not write your address or any other information that would identify you on the envelope or questionnaires. You should not discuss any of the questionnaires or your answers with anyone, including your spouse, until after the packet has been mailed. Study results will be reported to the church leader who distributed the questionnaire packets when the study is completed. Participants may contact the researcher for overall study results using the provided
111
contact information after the study is completed. Participants may also contact the researcher for individual results after the study is completed. Risks and Benefits of being in the Study: The study has several risks: First, it is possible for your questionnaire answers to be discovered without your written consent. To minimize this risk a random ID number will be utilized to identify questionnaires instead of participant’s name. Also, no individual participant results will be released or published. Second, it is possible for participants to become fatigued from completing the questionnaires. To minimize this risk the short version was chosen for each questionnaire available in a shorter form. Third, it is possible for participants to experience increased awareness during or after answering the questionnaires, which could result in increased anxiety or emotional disturbance. In the event of increased anxiety or emotional disturbance, participants can contact the following mental health service provider: Hope Crossing Christian Counseling 1810 Craig Road St. Louis MO 63141 314-983-9300 No study is without risks. However, the risks in this study are minimal and are no more than what participants would encounter in everyday life. Increased awareness is also a potential benefit to participants. Increased awareness can facilitate increased understanding of self and/or one’s partner. Another potential benefit to participants is knowing that participation in this study is contributing to a general body of knowledge regarding marriage relationships. The results of this study will be published and could aid in the development of further research, marriage enrichment curriculum, or improvements in marital therapy. Compensation: There will be no compensation provided to participants. In the event they contact the mental health provider for services, participants will be expected to follow the normal payment policies set forth by the mental health provider. Confidentiality: Completed questionnaires will be mailed by the participants to the researcher in the self-addressed stamped envelope provided by the researcher. Once received, the questionnaires will be kept private and stored in a secure locked safe only accessible to the researcher and a research assistant. The research assistant will aid the researcher in data entry once the questionnaire packets are received. The results of this study will be published in the researcher’s dissertation and may be released in future publications. However, no information will be published that will make it possible to identify any individual participant.
112
Voluntary Nature of the Study: Participation in this study is voluntary. Your decision whether or not to participate will not affect your current or future relations with Liberty University or your church. If you decide to participate, you are free to not answer any question or to withdraw at any time without affecting those relationships. Contacts and Questions: The researcher conducting this study is Timothy Williams. You may ask any questions you have now. If you have any questions later you are encouraged to contact him. To reach him by telephone or email: (Contact information deleted) If you have any questions or concerns regarding this study and would like to talk to someone other than the researcher, you are encouraged to contact the Institutional Review Board, 1971 University Boulevard, Suite 1837, Lynchburg, VA 24502, or email at [email protected]. You may keep this copy of the consent form for your records. By completing the enclosed questionnaires and mailing them to the researcher using the envelope provided, you are confirming that you have read, understand, and agree with the information contained in this consent form. IRB Code Numbers: IRB Expiration Date:
